JUDGMENT 1. - The brief facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a very narrow campass. On 5.2.76 at about 7.30 a.m., Food Inspector Kutubuddin Khan was taking samples of food articles at Jaipur Devli road octroi post, Tonk; at that time, accused respondent was coming from the side of village Daulata towards the said octroi post. The Food Inspector checked him at the octroi post and after giving notice to the accused-respondent, took a sample of milk weighing 660 mls. from the accused after paying him Rs. 130/- as price. The sample was divided into three parts, which were duly sealed. One sample was given to the accused respondent and the Food Inspector took the remaining two samples with him. One bottle was sent to the Public Analyst. On analysis, the milk was found to be adulterated. The accused-respondent was informed about the report of the Public Analyst and after obtaining necessary sanction Ex. P. 6, a complaint was filed against the accused in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. 2. After due trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found accused respondent guilty of an offence u/s 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and convicted and sentenced him accordingly. The accused respondent was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further six months imprisonment. 3. Aggrieved, accused-respondent went in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, who by his judgment dated 13-1-81 accepted the appeal of the accused-respondent and acquitted him of the aforesaid charge on two grounds, namely, (i) that the milk in question was not meant for sale and (ii) the milk sample purchased from the accused-respondent was not taken within the territorial limits of the Municipal Board Tonk and as such the Food Inspector took sample from an area, which did not fall in his jurisdiction. Aggrieved, the Local Health Authority namely, C.M.H.O., Tonk, preferred D. B. Criminal Leave was granted on 19-1-82 with the result that this appeal has come up for hearing. 4. Aggrieved, the Local Health Authority namely, C.M.H.O., Tonk, preferred D. B. Criminal Leave was granted on 19-1-82 with the result that this appeal has come up for hearing. 4. Shri M.I. Khan, learned P.P. submitted that in this case, the Food Inspector due to inadvertence failed to file the notification, which specified the territorial limits of his jurisdiction with the result that the learned Sessions Judge arrived at a finding that the place where the Food Inspector had checked the accused-respondent, was not within the Municipal limits of Tonk. He submits that he may be permitted to place this notification on record now to show that the place from which sample had been taken, fell within the territorial area of the Food Inspector. On the other point, namely, that the milk was not meant for sale, he submits that the law is very well settled that even sale to a Food Inspector is sale for the purposes of the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 5. Shri A.K. Gupta strenuously opposes the appeal and submits that the offence pertains to the year 1976 and the accused had to undergo an agonising trial and had to incur expenses in preferring appeal to the court of sessions and now when we are in threshold of the year 1990 that a request is being made by the learned P.P. to file the notification, which would amount to filling up lacuna of the prosecution. It is urged that the objection to the competence of the Food Inspector had been raised before the Sessions Judge, yet no notification was filed. Leave to appeal was granted on 19-1-82 yet no notification was filed. He urges that the learned P.P. should not be permitted to place this notification on record at this belated stage. He submits that since the Food Inspector had checked the accused-respondent outside the Municipal Limits of Tonk, he was not entitled to take the samples and, therefore, the acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge should not be interfered with. 6. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions advanced me. Learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that the Food Inspector had taken sample from the accused-respondent at a place which was outside the Municipal limits of the town of Tonk and consequently outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Food Inspector. 6. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions advanced me. Learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that the Food Inspector had taken sample from the accused-respondent at a place which was outside the Municipal limits of the town of Tonk and consequently outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Food Inspector. The narration of facts given in the leave to appeal petition goes to show that the accused-respondent was coming from village Daulta from the octroi post and it was then that the checking had taken place. P.W. 3 categorically stated that the writing pertaining to this checking had been done outside the Municipal limits. When the matter went before the learned Sessions Judge regarding lack of jurisdiction of the Food Inspector, no notification was filed to show that the place where sample was taken fell within the local area of the Food Inspector. No notification was filed even with the special leave petition. 7. Ordinarily, I would have permitted the learned P.P. to place the notification in question on record but it is to be remembered that the offence is said to have been committed on 5-2-76. We are almost at the threshold of the year 1990. The accused had to undergo the agonising travails of a regular trial as also of an appeal. In my opinion, it would not be fair to permit the learned P.P. to take fresh innings at this late stage by permitting him to file the notification pertaining to local limits of the Food Inspector, particularly when it was not filed by the prosecution inspite of the fact that the point had been raised before the learned Sessions Judge. It is to be remembered that the accused-respondent had been acquitted in this case and if the request of the learned P.P. is accepted, it would re-open the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not feel inclined to interfere with acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk. 8. The appeal is thus devoid of force and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******