JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This appeal is directed against the order of Sri K. P. Mathur, Special Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad dated 19-4-1978 in Criminal Case No. 1836 of 1976 by which opposite party was acquitted of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Appeal was called out in the revised list also but none turned up to press this appeal on behalf of the appellant. Only Shri R.S. Singh, learned Advocate for State was present. I have carefully perused the record. 3. It appears that on 18-9-75 at about 9 A.M. opposite party was found by the Food Inspector Sri K. P. Singh Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad carrying milk for sale near Jamuna-bridge, Gau Ghat. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and served notice Form No. 6 Ext. ka-1 on opposite party in presence of witnesses. He purchased 660 Ml. of milk for a sum of Rs 1.25 for which a receipt Ext. ka-2 was procured in presence of Sri R.A. Misra and Sri Kali Kumar. The milk was divided in three equal parts in three phials and each phial was sealed up after adding 18 drops of Formalin in each bottle. One sealed phial was made over to opposite party while the remaining two were sent to the office of Nagar Swasthya Adhikari. One sealed phial from the Office was sent to Public Analyst who reported that fat contents in the milk sample were 4.2% while non-fatty solids were 8.1%. Sample was found deficient in fat contents by 30% as judged on the basis of statutory standard for buffalo milk, vide report dated 10-10-75 of Public Analyst Ext. ka. 3 4. The prosecution of opposite party was ordered and this complaint was filed in the competent court. In support of their case, prosecution tiled the requisite documents and examined Sri Kali Kumar, P. W. 1 and Sri Suresh Chand, P.W. 2. In this statement opposite party denied the aforesaid allegations and alleged that witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution were employees of Nagar Mahapalika-, Allahabad. He did not produce any defence. The case ended in an acquittal. 5. I have carefully perused the evidence on record and find the aforesaid order as unassailable for the following reasons. 6. The case was initiated on the complaint of Pood Inspector Sri K.P. Singh who was the hero of this drama. He did not produce any defence. The case ended in an acquittal. 5. I have carefully perused the evidence on record and find the aforesaid order as unassailable for the following reasons. 6. The case was initiated on the complaint of Pood Inspector Sri K.P. Singh who was the hero of this drama. Sri K.P. Singh did not enter the witness box. No explanation was given for his non production. In such circumstances the bottom of the prosecution case was knocked out and it was simply staging the Hamlet without the prince of Denmark. 7. P.W. 1 Kali Kumar who entered the witness-box to prove the prosecution case about the sample has irretrievably damaged the prosecution case by alleging that the sample seized was not of buffalo milk but was mixed cow-buffalo milk. The deficiency was found as the sample was judged on the standard of buffalo milk and consequently the report of Public Analyst was not use-able against the opposite party. In his examination-in-chief P. W. 1. Sri Kali Kumar, Assistant Hawaldar testified about Ext. ka. 2 the relevant entry from the sample register but conceded in cross-examination that he did not bring the original register extract of which had been filed. He further damaged the prosecution case by alleging that the milk was not taken from the single can but. one by one as was mandatory under Section 11(1)(b) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 8. Sri Suresh Chand, P. W. 2, is the formal witness who proved the receipt of the sample of milk in the Office of Nagar Swasthya Adhikari. He simply proved the report of Public Analyst Ext. ka 1 and the order of prosecution Ext. ka-4 and complaint Ext. Ka-5. He, further testified that a copy of the report was sent to opposite party through acknowledgement receipt. 9. In these circumstances it is obvious that learned trial Magistrate rightly found that no adulteration of the milk has been proved in the case when it was not buffalo milk as was the prosecution case but was mixed milk of cow-buffalo. So the very foundation of the prosecution case had been knocked out. Learned Magistrate rightly pointed out that the original sample register was withheld and sample extract Ext. ka-2 was produced. There was a material contradiction in his statement about it and thus his testimony was unreliable. He was the solitary witness of fact. So the very foundation of the prosecution case had been knocked out. Learned Magistrate rightly pointed out that the original sample register was withheld and sample extract Ext. ka-2 was produced. There was a material contradiction in his statement about it and thus his testimony was unreliable. He was the solitary witness of fact. Opposite party did not admit his guilt and consequently the ingredients of offences under Sections 7(i) and 16(i)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were not made out against the opposite party. The impugned order of acquittal cannot be regarded as unreasonable or perverse and must stand. 10. So the appeal is dismissed.