Judgment : 1. This appeal filed by the Food Inspector Cuddalore Municipality represented by Public prosecutor, Madras is directed against the Judgment dated 10. 1984 in G.O.No.145 of 1984 on the file on the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, acquitting the respondent Ganesan, in respect of the offences under Sections 7(i) and 16(l)(a)(i) read with Section 2(i)(a) and (m) Rules 23 and 29 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: .P.W.I Chandran is the Food Inspector, working in Cuddalore Municipality. On 13. 1984 at about 7.30 a.m., P.W.I along with his Assistant, went to the tea shop of the accused. .P.W.I served Ex.P.l form No.6 on the respondent expressing his intention to take sample and took the sample of decoration mixed with sugar, on payment of Rs. 1.50 and obtained Ex.P.2 cash receipt. The the sample was divided into three parts and the same were put in three bottles. After serving all the formalities, the Food Inspector, P.W.I sent one bottle for analysis and two bottles to the local health authority along with form No.7.Ex.P.3. The acknowledgment is Ex.P.4. 3. P.W.2 Ramadass, the successor of P.W.I, received Ex.P.5, report of the Chemical analyst on 24. 1984. On 6. 1984 he filed a complaint against the respondent/accused and served notice under section 13(2) of the Act along with the copy of form No.3 upon the respondent on 6. 1984. 4. In this case, three witnesses were examined on the side of prosecution. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the Food Inspectors. P.W.3 is the mahazar witness. During the course of examination in court, P.W.2 the mahazar witness turned hostile. 5. When the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C, he stated that he was innocent. On his behalf D.W.I Ramachandran was examined. 6. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court acquitted the respondent/accused on the sole ground that P.W.3 who turned hostile, did not support the case of the prosecution, and as such, there was no corroboration for the evidence of P.W. 1 Food Inspector. 7. Mr.S.Manimaran, learned Government Advocate, representing the State, who preferred this appeal contended that this ground is not valid in law. 7. Mr.S.Manimaran, learned Government Advocate, representing the State, who preferred this appeal contended that this ground is not valid in law. In view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court reported in 1977 S.C.C. (Crl.) 78 in which, the Apex Court held that prosecution can based on the sole testimony of Food Inspector and the rule of corroboration by independent witness is one of prudence and not of law and merely because the mahazar witness turned hostile, the testimony of the Food Inspector cannot be thrown out. Time and again, the Courts have held that if the evidence of Food Inspector of the Officer concerned, on the case may be, is reliable, his evidence alone can be sufficient to base conviction and merely because the mahazar witness turned hostile, it could not be said that the entire evidence of the officers who are the public servants is to be rejected. 8. In view of the above fact, I feel that the ground on which the respondent is acquitted by the Court below is not valid in law, and as much, the judgment of the lower court is liable to be set aside. However the offence took place in March 1984. The Judgment of the lower court acquitting the respondent was rendered in October 1984. This appeal has been filed in 1985. Now, nearly 12 years have elapsed, and so, except in pointing out the above illegality, I am not inclined to set aside the Judgment of acquittal and convict the respondent. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.