Pathak, C.J. (Acting).- These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sibsagar at Jorhat in C.R. Case Nos. 2433 and 2434 of 1972 on 18.11.74, where in the Respondent was tried under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of food Adul­teration Act 1954 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') for selling and storing for sale of prohibited colour of moth dal and arahar dal The trial court on consideration of the evidence on record acquitted the Respondent of the charges in both the cases by a common judgment passed on the aforesaid date. 2. On 5.6.72 P.W.1, Sonaram Baruah, District Food Inspector went to the shop of the respondent and collected sample of arahar dal and moth dal on payment of the price for the same in presence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. The sample in both the cases were divided into three parts and properly sealed. One packet was sent to the public Analyst, one packet was given to the respondent and the third packet was retained in the Court. It is the case of the prosecution that the memorandum for the seizure was signed by P.W.2 and P.W.3. The Public Analyst Sri P.K. Das who was examined as C.W.I gave a report that samplar in both the cases were adulterated by non-permitted coaltar dye known as-"metanil yellow". On receipt of the report from the Public Analyst, P.W.1 sought the sanction from the Civil Surgeon, Jorhat and after obtaining the sanction launched the prosecution. 3. The learned trial court on scrutiny of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that P.W.2, who was an indepen­dent witness, did not see the actual collection of the samples from the shop. He has further held that the memoranda on the basis of which the Public Analyst gave a report was not before the Court nor any document showing the data on the basis of which the test was made, brought before the Court. On. the above conclusion the learned trial court acquitted the res­pondent of the charges in both the cases by the aforesaid common judgment. On. the above conclusion the learned trial court acquitted the res­pondent of the charges in both the cases by the aforesaid common judgment. The trial court did not consider the evidence of P,W.3, Madan Bora, as the learned trial court was of the view that he was a peon under the Civil Surgeon, who accompanied the Food Inspector, P.W.1 at the time of inspection of the shop of the respondent. 4. We have ourselves perused the evidence of P.W. 2, Bharam Bharali. On the scrutiny of his evidence it is quite apparent that he was present at the time when the pulses were being collected from the shop of respondent. He has farther deposed that when the Food Inspector prepared the papers, he signed those papers and they are marked as Ext. 1(3) and Ext. 2(2). This deposi­tion is in regard to C.R. Case No. 2433/72. He has given similar evidence in regard to other case namely, C.R. Case No. 2434/72. He has stated that the accused Ram Kumar was present whom he knew. He entered the shop while the Food Inspector was taking the materials. It is in his evidence that the Food Inspector collected arahar and moth dal. He was present when the arahar dal was being packed. In view of the specific evidence of this witness in both the cases, we find it difficult to accept the conclu­sion as reached by the Disarmed trial court that this witness came later after the sample-packets were sealed or packed. As we have already adverted, the evidence of P.W.3 has not at all been considered. He has given the graphic description about the seizure made in the shop by P.W.1. He has stated that he accompanied P.W.1 right from this office. It is in his evidence that there was no customer in the shop at that time and when they and the respondent were there. He has stated that P.W.2 arrived after they have sat in the shop for -20/25 minutes and that witness was present there at the time when the arahar dal was collected. This witness also put his signature in the memorandum prepared by the Food Inspector. This evidence relates to C.R. Case No. 2433 of 1972. We find similar evidence of this witness in regard to C.R. Case No. 2434 of 1972, where he has stated that P.W.1 collected the sample of moth dal. This witness also put his signature in the memorandum prepared by the Food Inspector. This evidence relates to C.R. Case No. 2433 of 1972. We find similar evidence of this witness in regard to C.R. Case No. 2434 of 1972, where he has stated that P.W.1 collected the sample of moth dal. A notice in Form IV was served. Six hundred grams of arahar dal and six hundred grams of mothdal were taken and the quan­tity was divided into three parts and packed separately. It is in his evidence that P.W.1 paid the shop-keeper for the sample taken from the shop. He put his signature as Ext. 1(3) and Ext. 2(3) on the memorandum prepared by P.W.1. P.W. 1 has given a state­ment that he collected arahar dal from the shop of the respon­dent He served notice in Form IV in presence of witnesses. Ext 1 is the notice and Ext. 1(1) is his signature. He has proved that Ext. 1(2) is the signature of accused-respondent. He has also proved, that Ext. 1(3) is the signature of Bharam Bharali, P. W. 2. He has further proved that Ext. 1(4) is the signature of Madan Bora, P. W. 3. This is the evidence in C. R. Case No. 2433 of 1972. This witness has given identical evidence in C. R. Case No. 2434 of 1972. C.W. 1 Sri P. K. Das, the public Analyst has stated in his evidence that on 10.6.72 he received the sam­ple of arahar dal from P.W. 1 for analysis. He has stated that he examined the sample and submitted the report Ext. 4 and Ext.4 (1) is his signature. In his report Ext.4 he has recorded that the sample was found to be coloured with metanil yellow which is a prohibited dye. Similarly in his report regarding the moth dal, he has recorded that it was coloured with non-permitted yellow coaltar dye 'metanil yellow'. This case involving food adulteration being hazardous to the community, should not have been lightly dealt with by the learned trial court and the positive evidence of the prosecution should not have been brushed aside on untenable grounds. 5. This case involving food adulteration being hazardous to the community, should not have been lightly dealt with by the learned trial court and the positive evidence of the prosecution should not have been brushed aside on untenable grounds. 5. On scrutiny of the evidence on record, we find that the learned trial court was not justified in brushing aside the clinching nature of the evidence of P. W.'s 1,2 and 3 as well as the report of C.W.I, the Public Analyst, who was examined in the court as a court witness. C.W.I has categorically recor­ded in his report that the two articles which were sent to him were adulterated by coaltar dye or metanil yellow. This report is further corroborated by his unshaken testimony. The observation of the trial court that the memoranda showing the data for recording the report was not produced before the court would not militate against the positive and unimpeachable rep­ort given by C.W.I. 6. From the evidence on record we find that the learned trial court was not justified in returning a verdict that the respondent was not guilty of the charges framed against him. Accordingly the order of acquittal passed against the respondent is set aside' He is liable to be convicted under section 7 read with section 16 of the Act for the offences for which he was charged which we accordingly do. 7. This is a case which dates back to 1972. About ten years have elapsed and we are of opinion that the ends of justice shall be met if the respondent is awarded with a total fine of Rs. 1,000/-in both the cases. 8. In the result these appeals are allowed.