Judgment : ( 1 ) THE above appeal arises out of the order of the learned Judicial magistrate III, Srivilliputtur in CC No. 594 of 1989 dated 15/5/1990. ( 2 ) THE accused herein stood charged under the provisions of Food and adulteration Act on the ground that on 12/2/1989 at about 11. 30 a. m. , in the shop belonging to A1 it was noticed that they were in possession of Bengal Gram Dal with Kesari Dal adulterated in violation of the provisions of Food and Adulteration act. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate had cited several reasons for rejecting the complaint. ( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate has held that there was no proper authorisation for the Food Inspector to file the complaint as well as violation of Section 1 l (l) (a) of Food and Adulteration Act. ( 5 ) THE above appeal has been filed by the State on the ground that the Food inspector have been duly authorised to lay complaint by a General Authorisation vide g. O. Ms. No. 1861. Health, dated 6-6-1956 and that Section 11 (l) (a) of the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act has also been properly complied with. The State would further contend that Form VI notice with the signatures of the accused have been served on A2 and that the service of form VI itself was substantial compliance of the statutory requirements. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, I find that even on the merits of the case, the above appeal is liable to be dismissed without going into the other issues raised in the above appeal. ( 7 ) IT is seen that PW2 is the mahazar witness of having attested exhibit P1 issued under Form VI under Rule 12. It is alleged that Azhaghukonar, PW2 had attested exhibit P1. But, in his evidence though he has admitted his signature in exhibit P1, would state that he is not aware of the context regarding which his signature was obtained. In the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor he would deny having attested exhibit P1 in the context of the food or the materials which were seized under Form VI. Therefore, in the absence of the evidence of Mahazar witness the Prosecution has to fail. In the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor he would deny having attested exhibit P1 in the context of the food or the materials which were seized under Form VI. Therefore, in the absence of the evidence of Mahazar witness the Prosecution has to fail. ( 8 ) THE requirement of obtaining attestation by independent witnesses is emphasized under sub-section (7) of section 10 of Prevention of Food and adulteration Act which is as follows: "where a Food Inspector takes any action under Clause (a) of sub-section (1)of Section 2, sub-section (4) of Section 6, he shall call one or more persons to be present at that time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures". Therefore, the requirement of obtaining independent witnesses is mandatory and therefore in the absence of corroboration by such witnesses the prosecution has to fail. In the present case, the signature of only one witness has been obtained and he having turned hostile the prosecution has to fail. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, the above appeal is dismissed.