Judgment :- 1. Under S.16(1)(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, if any person prevents a Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorised by the Act he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. The revision petitioners have been punished under this provision on the basis of the complaint filed by the Food Inspector. The allegation was that the complainant visited j the shop T. P. III/366/B in Thalavoor Panchayat on 23-1-1982 at 9.30 a.m. The first accused joy, the licencee, and the second accused Daniel, the proprietor, were present in the shop and they obstructed the Food Inspector and prevented him from taking samples for the purpose of analysis in exercise of his official duty. A complaint was filed on 24-2-1982. In support of the allegations the Food Inspector and his Peon were examined as pws.1 and 2. Ext. P2 mahazar and Ext. P3 receipt for payment of licence fee were proved. The accused in denying the accusation set up a case that it was a malicious prosecution on the part of the Food Inspector and also proved Ext. Dl notice and examined three witnesses on the defence side. 2. The learned Magistrate accepted the testimony of the complainant and his assistant, found the allegations true and convicted both the accused and sentenced each to undergo R.1 for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to suffer S.1 for one week each. The appeal preferred against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. The matter is taken up in revision to this court. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners urged that the conviction is wrong, that the courts below have acted upon irrelevant and extraneous materials without taking into consideration the serious infirmities which would render the case unacceptable. There is considerable force in this contention. 4. The complainant had made allegations against the two accused persons in that there had been physical obstruction and also wilful refusal on their part to co-operate with the Food Inspector in taking samples for the purpose of analysis on his visit to the shop on 23-1-1982. There is considerable force in this contention. 4. The complainant had made allegations against the two accused persons in that there had been physical obstruction and also wilful refusal on their part to co-operate with the Food Inspector in taking samples for the purpose of analysis on his visit to the shop on 23-1-1982. It is the case of the complainant that when he visited the shop and proceeded to take the sample, besides his peon, the owner of the adjacent tea shop, a beedi roller and the former salesman in the shop of the accused were present and the mahazar itself was drawn up sitting in the tea shop. These persons, according to the Food Inspector, refused to attest the mahazar. It is a case where independent witnesses were present. None of these persons has been cited or examined in the case. 5. As the very allegations are of the nature which necessarily involve deliberate or intentional act it partakes the character of positive action. The action of the Food Inspector in taking sample for analysis which is required to be proved in a case for contravention of the other provisions in the Act could be supported by documentary evidence, which would guarantee the truth of such action. But when the conduct of the accused is under challenge in order to substantiate such act on the part of the accused it is not enough that the complainant or his assistant gives evidence, to satisfy that in fact such incident happened. The mahazar if any drawn up by the Food Inspector affords only self-serving evidence and is irrelevant. In a case where independent witnesses were available and without any valid or proper explanation such evidence is not tendered before court it shall be quite unsafe to accept the interested testimony of the departmental witnesses to record the conviction for such offence. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court has considered this aspect in appreciating the evidence in the case. 6. It has also to be pointed out that the testimony of the complainant in the light of the facts that has been proved was required to be viewed with great caution. Ext. D1 is the notice issued by the complainant on 25-1-1982 requiring the first accused to produce the licence. 6. It has also to be pointed out that the testimony of the complainant in the light of the facts that has been proved was required to be viewed with great caution. Ext. D1 is the notice issued by the complainant on 25-1-1982 requiring the first accused to produce the licence. When the allegation is that the Food Inspector was unlawfully obstructed by the accused on 22-1-1982 no whisper has been made about that incident in the notice issued to the accused. If such an incident as is now spoken to by the complainant had happened it would have naturally found a place in Ext. D1. This suspicious feature is sufficient to discard the testimony of the Food Inspector that there bad been unlawful obstruction when he visited the shop on 23-1-1982. There is also inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Apparently there bad been no reason why the complainant had desisted from taking action immediately. The delay is at any rate not explained. In view of these factors the testimony of pws.1 and 2 could not have been considered as sufficient to warrant a conviction against the accused. The revision petition is to be allowed and the conviction and sentence are to be set aside. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused are acquitted of the charges.