Judgment The Food Inspector, Karungulam Panchayat, purchased from the shop of the respondent at 5/79-A at Kongarayarkurichi, on 14 th November, 1982 at about 3.45 p.m. 600 grams of Cumin seeds, for Rs. 16.80, divided the Cumin seeds so purchased in to three equal parts, sealed them in three clean dry bottles and sent one such bottle to the Government Analyst at Guindy, Madras. The report of the Analyst, Ex. P.6, shows that the sample so taken contains: “insect, damaged matter in excess of the maximum permitted limit to the extent of 184 percent.” After receiving the report of the Analyst, the Food Inspector laid the charge-sheet. 2. The defence of the accused were: (1) That there was delay in analysing the food article and that, has caused prolification of the insects in the sample ; and (2) that there is no compliance of S. 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that P.W.1, the Food Inspector has not stated that the insects were present at the time of sending the sample and on that ground the insects were present at the time of sending the sample and on that ground the insects have multiplied due to the delay in analysis. The State has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent. 4. Mr.R.M. Kannappa Rajendran, learned Government Advocate, was right in saying that S. 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has not been violated in this case. There is evidence that the Food Inspector invited 2 persons to attest the purchase of the sample, but these persons have refused to come and attest the Form 6 and the cash receipt. It has been held by this Court in various decisions that the duty cast on the Food Inspector is only to call for independent evidence and if these independent witnesses did not care to attest the Form, he is under no obligation that he should produce independent witnesses at all cost. If authority is required for that proposition it is to be found in Esayaki Konar, In re, 1987 L.W. (Crl.) 68. Therefore, the trial Magistrate was wrong in saying that there is no independent witness and therefore the proceedings of the Food Inspector arc vitiated. 5. If authority is required for that proposition it is to be found in Esayaki Konar, In re, 1987 L.W. (Crl.) 68. Therefore, the trial Magistrate was wrong in saying that there is no independent witness and therefore the proceedings of the Food Inspector arc vitiated. 5. The second ground on which the accused was acquitted was that P.W.I has not stated that there were insects at the time of packing. This is factually wrong because I find from the evidence of P.W.1 that in cross-examination it has been elicited from him that there were insects at the time when be took the sample. In view of this factual error and in view of the ruling reported in Esayaki Konar, In re, 1987 L.W. (Crl.) 68-it appears to me that the proper course to be adopted is to set aside the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the accused and to remit the matter for de novo trial. The trial Court will dispose of the case, after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce oral evidence, if any, in respect of their contentions. 6. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The trial Magistrate will expedite the case, as it is an old one.