JUDGMENT S. Malik, J. - This is an appeal by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, against the judgment dated 28-2-1975 of the Nagar Mahapalika Magistrate, acquitting the accused-respondents of charges framed ' against them for offences punishable under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and also under section 16 read with rule I 50(i) of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder. 2. According to the prosecution, the Food Inspector, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra P.W. 1 V.N. Singh took for analysis on payment sample of cow's milk on 31-10-1972 at about 9.00 A.M. from accused Subhash Chandra at the I shop belonging to his brother Om Prakash. The portion sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated as it was deficient in non-fatty solids. The Public Analyst found the percentage of non-fatty solids to be 7.4 percent I instead of 8 5 percent fat content in the sample was above the percentage I specified under the rules. Instead of 3.5 percent the percentage of fat contents was 5 percent. The prosecution has further alleged that neither Subhash Chandra nor Om Prakash had a licence to sell milk and thereby contravened i rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty. According to the defence, Om Prakash alone used to deal in milk at his shop. His younger brother accused Subhash Chandra was a young boy and it was not his duty to sell milk. On I the date of the incident Subhash Chandra was sent to the shop to clean up the place. Some milk was lying there in a container which could not be sold on the previous day and the Food inspector took sample from the same, I though Subhash Chandra told him that it was not for sale and had been kept for preparing Khowa out of it. Subhash Chandra, moreover, wanted to call his brother accused Om Prakash the owner of the shop, but the Food Inspector did not allow him to do so. It is further alleged that the Food Inspector neither paid any price for the sample nor was it sold to him by Subhash Chandra. In their defence the accused examined three witnesses. 4. The prosecution in all examined four witnesses. It is further alleged that the Food Inspector neither paid any price for the sample nor was it sold to him by Subhash Chandra. In their defence the accused examined three witnesses. 4. The prosecution in all examined four witnesses. P.W. 1 V.N. Singh, the Food Inspector, P.W. 2 Mahendra Singh, another employee of his Department and P.W. 3 Shanker Lal, a member of the public, were examined by the prosecution to prove that the sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector according to law. P.W. 4 O P Bharadwaj was the licence-clerk of the Nagar Mahapalika. He was examined to prove that Om Prakash on the date of the incident had not obtained the necessary licence for dealing in milk, 5. The member of the public P.W. 3 Shanker Lal did not support the prosecution version and rather supported the defence version. The learned Magistrate, for reasons enumerated in his judgment, did not find the statements made by the Food Inspector and Mahendra Singh to be reliable. The age of Subbash Chandra has been noted to have been 12 years at the time of the trial. He, therefore, was a very young boy and could hardly have realised what the Food Inspector did. The Food Inspector should have waited for Om Prakash to be called by Subhash Chandra and then taken the sample. Moreover, the report of the Public Analyst does not appear to be reliable. The Public Analyst did not find any foreign matter in the sample of milk. There is no known method by which non-fatty solids could be extracted from milk without disturbing the fat content in it. The report of the Public Analyst under the circumstances is far from convincing. 6. The learned Magistrate has further pointed out that Om Prakash had already deposited the fee for the licence. If the licence had not been issued to him, the fault was of the complainant. 7. In view of the reasons discussed, I see no legal force in this appeal and dismiss it.