JUDGMENT B.N. Katju, J. - The Nagar Swasthya Adhikari of Nagar Mahapalika, Agra has filed this appeal against the acquittal of Bahadur Singh Respondent u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Munsif Magistrate 1st Class, Agra by his judgment dated 22-1-1977 passed in Criminal Case No. 1564 of 1976. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14-4-75 at about 7 P. M. Rajendra Mohan Chaturvedi (PW 1) Food Inspector of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra found Bahadur Singh Respondent selling milk in Mohalla Nala Mantola within the limits of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra. He gave notice to him under Rule 12 of the Rules framed under the Act and obtained his signature on its copy Ext. Ka. 1. He purchased 6.60 Mls. of milk from Bahadur Singh Respondent for Re. 1.30 P. The receipt of the payment of Re. 1.30 P. as the price of the milk was given by Bahadur Singh Respondent to the Food Inspector, which is Ext. Ka. 2. The milk was divided into three parts and put in three bottles which were sealed. A report was prepared by the Food Inspector on the spot and the signatures of the witnesses were obtained on it, which is Ext. Ka. 3. The signature of Bahadur Singh Respondent was also obtained on form No. 7, which is Ex. Ka. 4. One of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and the report of the Public Analyst showed that the sample of milk sent to him contained 2.3% of milk fat and 6.6% of non-fatty solids. It was thus deficient by 34% in milk fat and 22% in non-fatty solids on the basis of the standard prescribed for cow's milk. 3. The complaint u/s 7/16 of the Act was filed by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra against Bahadur Singh Respondent in the court of Munsif Magistrate 1st Class, Agra on 12-9-1975. 4. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to connect Bahadur Singh Respondent with the crime, namely, Rajehdra Mohan Chaturvedi (PW 1), Sabir (PW 2), Arjun Das (PW 3) and Mahesh Chandra (PW 4). 5. Bahadur Singh Respondent pleaded not guilty. He denied selling milk to the Food Inspector on 14-4-75. 4. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to connect Bahadur Singh Respondent with the crime, namely, Rajehdra Mohan Chaturvedi (PW 1), Sabir (PW 2), Arjun Das (PW 3) and Mahesh Chandra (PW 4). 5. Bahadur Singh Respondent pleaded not guilty. He denied selling milk to the Food Inspector on 14-4-75. It was stated by him that about half a litre of milk was taken by the Food Inspector without paying its price. The said milk was not for sale, but was being taken by him to his friend Nizam. 6. Nizam (DW 1) was examined in defence. 7. The trial court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish that the milk was being sold by Bahadur Singh Respondent to Sabir (PW 2) at the time of the incident and acquitted him. 8. Rajendra Mohan Chaturvedi Food Inspector (P. W. 1) narrated the prosecution case as mentioned earlier. His evidence is supported by notice Ext. Ka. 1, receipt Ext. Ka. 2, report Ext. Ka. 3 and form No. 7 Ext. Ka. 4. It may be mentioned that Exts. Ka. 1, Ka. 2 and Ka. 4 contain the signatures of Bahadur Singh Respondent. There does not appear to be any previous enmity between Rajendra Mohan Chaturvedi and Bahadur Singh Respondent. There was, therefore, no reason for him to implicate Bahadur Singh Respondent falsely. Nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to demolish his testimony. His evidence is thus reliable. 9. Sabir (PW 2) deposed in his examination-in-chief that on the day of occurrence at about 5.30 P. M. no milk was purchased by the Food Inspector in his presence. He was thereafter declared hostile and was cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. It was admitted by him in his cross-examination that Bahadur Singh Respondent had signed notice Ext. Ka. 1 and receipt Ext. Ka. 2 in his presence and his thumb impression was obtained by the Food Inspector on report Ext. Ka. 3. It was also admitted by him that Bahadur Singh Respondent had milk in his possession at the time of the incident. In these circumstances, his evidence that the milk, which was in possession of Bahadur Singh Respondent, was not for sale but was being taken by Bahadur Singh Respondent to Nizam cannot be relied upon. 10. Ka. 3. It was also admitted by him that Bahadur Singh Respondent had milk in his possession at the time of the incident. In these circumstances, his evidence that the milk, which was in possession of Bahadur Singh Respondent, was not for sale but was being taken by Bahadur Singh Respondent to Nizam cannot be relied upon. 10. Arjun Das (PW 3) stated that he was the Sanitary Supervisor of the Nagar Mahaplaika, Agra. On 14-4-75 he was accompanying Rajendra Mohan. Chaturvedi (PW 1) when he purchased milk from Bahadur Singh Respondent. He was corroborated by the evidence of Rajendra Mohan Chaturvedi. The mere fact that he was the Sanitary Supervisor of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra is not sufficient for rejecting his testimony. He had also no previous enmity with Bahadur Singh Respondent. There was, therefore, no reason for him to depose falsely against Bahadur Singh Respondent. Nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to demolish his testimony. His evidence appears to be reliable. 11. Mahesh Chandra (PW 4) deposed that he was the Licence Clerk in the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra. He brought the Licence Register of 1975/76, which was produced by him in the trial court. The said Licence Register showed that Bahadur Singh Respondent had a licence for selling milk from 15-7-75 till 31-3-76. He was not cross-examined at all on behalf of Bahadur Singh Respondent. His evidence, therefore, established that Bahadur Singh Respondent was a licensed milk seller between 15-7-1975 and 31-3-76 and that he had no licence to sell milk on 14-4-75. 12. Nizam (DW 1) deposed that Bahadur Singh Respondent was his acquaintance and that about 1-1/2 years prior to his deposition in court he had brought three or four liters of milk to his house, for which he did not pay any price and Bahadur Singh Respondent had told him that the Food Inspector had purchased sample of milk from him forcibly. It was, however, admitted by him that he was not present at the time of the incident and, therefore, he was not in a position to depose whether or not Bahadur Singh Respondent was selling milk at the time of the incident. It is also difficult to believe that Bahadur Singh Respondent would have given him three or four liters of a milk without obtaining its price. His evidence, is, therefore, unreliable. 13. It is also difficult to believe that Bahadur Singh Respondent would have given him three or four liters of a milk without obtaining its price. His evidence, is, therefore, unreliable. 13. The trial court clearly erred in acquitting Bahadur Singh Respondent u/s 7/16 of the Act on the ground that it had not been established that he was selling milk to Sabir at the time of the incident, which was wholly irrelevant. The evidence of Rajendra Mohan Chaturvedi (PW 1) and Arjan Das (PW 3) establishes that Bahadur Singh Respondent sold 6.60 Mls. of milk to Rajendra Mohan Chaturvedi at the time of the incident, which was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst. Bahadur Singh Respondent is, therefore, clearly guilty u/s 7/16 of the Act. 14. Considering the fact that the incident took place about six years back ends of justice would be met by sentencing Bahadur Singh Respondent to one month's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 15. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment of the trial court is set aside and Bahadur Singh Respondent is convicted u/s 7/16 of the Act and is sentenced to one month's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo one month's R. I. 16. Bahadur Singh Respondent shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him. 17. The fine shall be deposited within three months of the receipt of the record by the trial court.