JUDGMENT S. Malik, J. - This is an appeal by Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi against the judgment dated 14-1-1983 of Sri A.S Ansari, Munsit-Magistrate, 1 Class, Varanasi acquitting the accused-respondent, Mithai Lal Yadav, of an offence punishable under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. After the appeal was admitted by this Court and the lower court's record was sent for a report was received from the court below that the lower court's record with the entire evidence in the case including the report of the Public Analyst has been weeded out. It appears that the lower court's record was requisitioned by this Court rather late. 3. The learned counsel for the parties were given an opportunity to file documents so that the record may be reconstructed. The learned counsel for the respondent expressed his inability, but the learned counsel for the appellant after taking a number of opportunities today filed a copy of the grounds of appeal, the original notice issued by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari dated 31-1-1970 to the respondent and the report dated 14-9-1972 submitted to the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari by the Food Inspector. As appears from the certified copy of the lower court's judgment in the memorandum of appeal, according to the prosecution, the Food Inspector took sample of edible mustard oil from the respondent on 31-1-1970 according to law, and that the portion sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated as it was found 10 contain linseed oil. 4. The respondent pleaded not guilty and alleged that the oil sold by him to the Food Inspector was not edible oil. The learned Magistrate has observed that in the receipt and also on another document, which were prepared at the time of the taking of the sample, it was noted that the article supplied was not edible oil and that it was not meant for human consumption. The learned Magistrate on examining the documents came to the conclusion that the words in Hindi meaning 'inedible oil' was added subsequently. Neither of these two documents are before this Court to enable it to determine whether the words were added in different ink or subsequently. This Court, therefore, cannot form its own judgment about the observations made by the lower court. Neither of these two documents are before this Court to enable it to determine whether the words were added in different ink or subsequently. This Court, therefore, cannot form its own judgment about the observations made by the lower court. The lower court acquitted the accused because, according to it, it was not proved that the sample of oil sold was of edible mustard oil. It may be repeated that as there is no evidence before this Court, it is nut possible for this Court to determine whether the defence plea is correct. the presumption of innocence of an accused continues upto the stage of Under the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.