JUDGMENT Arun.Kumar Goel, J. (Oral):- Heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the record of this case. 2. Respondent was challenged for having committed the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) and 7 of the Food Adulteration Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the Rules framed thereunder. According to the prosecution case Food Inspector K.S.Verma (PW-1) was near S.D.M. Courts Chowk at Hamirpur on 28th June, 1990 when he saw respondent No.2 coning with Cans of milk loaded on his cycle containing about 60 Kgs. of cows milk, then he s asked to stop. While enquiries were being made by Food Inspector (PW-1) from respondent No. l Balbinder Singh, Jan Mohammad respondent No.2 appeared in the mean-time. Respondent No. 1 made a statement before the Food Inspector vide Ex. PD to the effect that milk belongs to respondent No.2, Jan Mohammed which was weighting 60 kg. and was in 4 iron Cans Loaded on the cycle. Milk had been given for carriage to Balbinder Singh-respondent No. l by Respondent No. 2 responsibility for sample etc. was that of said respondent No.2.To the same effect, identical statement vide Ex. PE was made by Jan Mohammad, respondent No.2 before the Food Inspector (PW-1). 3. After disclosing his identity as well as intention to draw the sample f out of the milk, Food Inspector issued notice and thereafter on payment of Rs. 3.75 to respondent No. l, purchased 750 Mis of milk which was distributed in three parts and thereafter was put in three neat, clean and dry bottles as also formaline as preservative 20 drops each was added in all the three bottles. Thereafter the samples were stoppered, packed and then sealed as required under law. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst and other two samples were sent to the Local Health Authority, Hamirpur. 4. Sample sent to the Public Analyst could not be analysed as it had been broken during transit and thereafter another sample was sent by Local Health Authority through a messenger as is evident from the statement of PW-2 Daljit Singh, Clerk from the office of Local Health Authority, Hamirpur. Uttam Chand, through whom this sample was sent, had not been examined by the prosecution for reasons best known to it. Uttam Chand, through whom this sample was sent, had not been examined by the prosecution for reasons best known to it. His examination was necessary in order to ensure that so long it remained in his custody it was not tampered with as also it remained in the same state in which it was entrusted to him. In this -behalf statement of Daljit Singh (PW-2) is also silent. He has nowhere stated that after the two samples were received from the Food Inspector, K.S. Verma (PW-1) in the office of Local Health Authority, both these samples remained in his custody. In order to succeed it was required of the prosecution to have proved on record that after receipt of two samples in the office of Local Health Authority from the Food Inspector (PW-1) those had been properly stored and remained in custody of PW- 2 and not tampered with in any manner whatsoever. Not a word has been said by Daljit Singh, Clerk from the office of local Health Authority. This is the first link in the chain of circumstances that is missing the second important link is non examination of Uttam Chand, through whom the sample had been sent to Local Health Authority, Chandigarh for analysis. Whether the seals were intact or not and whether the possibility of tampering of both the samples while those were in the office of Local Health Authority and thereafter when those were sent for analysis to the Public Analyst through Uttam Chand has not been ruled out which was necessary to be proved, particularly when samples had changed hand from the office of Local Health Authority to PW-2. If any authority in this behalf is required, reference c»n usefully be made to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in AIR 1980 S.C.1314, State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram. 5. In view of the aforesaid reference to the prosecution evidence as well as for want of requisite proof that the sample remained in the same Mate and was not tampered with till it was delivered in the office of Local Health Authority, Chandigarh the prosecution case has been rightly rejected by the trial Court and such finding calls for no interference. 6. 6. In accordance with the provisions of Section 10(7) of the whenever Food Inspector takes sample a duty is enjoined upon him to call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and the signatures of such persons who are called. In this context it may be appropriately mentioned that there can be circumstances where the witness is not come forth, say for example when the Food Inspector requests a person he refuses to join the proceedings undertaken by the Food Inspector or no witness is present. Admittedly, this is not the situation in the case in hand. On Parkash-PW had been called who had joined. 7. Purpose for calling one or more persons at the time when sample is taken by the Food Inspector appears to be that authenticity is there to the proceedings undertaken by the Food Inspector and further his evidence stand corroborated. In these circumstances it is expected that in order to achieve the object with which this salutary provisions has been enacted persons who need to be called should be independent and do not have to be under the influence of any sort of the Food Inspector. 8. In the aforesaid background when a reference is made to the statement of Om Parkash (PW-3), the so called independent witness, called by the Food Inspector under Section 10(7) of the Act, it is clear that in no case he can be said to be an independent witness having been called muchless associated with the process of taking sample to have witnessed the same. It is a matter of common knowledge of which this court cannot loose sight that a Karyana merchant sells numerous articles of which sample can be taken by the Food Inspector for the purpose of analysis. In these circumstances this court is of the view that Karyana merchant is not only under the influence but is also under the thumb of the Food Inspector. That being so the provision of law i.e. Section 10(7) of the Act has been followed more in breach than compliance by the Food Inspector. It may also be appropriate to notice that where the sample had been taken, it being a central place in Hamirpur town availability of other persons being not under the influence of Food Inspector is there. It may also be appropriate to notice that where the sample had been taken, it being a central place in Hamirpur town availability of other persons being not under the influence of Food Inspector is there. But no attempt appears to have been made to associate such persons, why and for what reason, has not been explained by the Food Inspector. On the other hand he chose to connect a convenient and suitable witness who, as already held, is always under his influence and thus, it cannot be said that salutary provision of law has been complied with. This also vitiates the process of taking sample and on this count also prosecution case must fail. 9. Trial Court has also taken into consideration sanction accorded by the Local Health Authority to prosecute the respondent. This court is of the view that when a reference is made to the sanction, it is clear that it was accorded by the Local Health Authority when all the documents relating to this case were put up before it and after seeing each one of the documents it had accorded the sanction. In these circumstances it cannot be said that sanction was accorded either in mechanical manner or was the result of non application of mind, therefore, findings in that behalf are hereby reversed. 10. For the reasons set-out hereinabove, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Personal and surety bond of the respondent is hereby discharged. Appeal dismissed.