JUDGMENT SURINDER SARUP, J,—The respondent, being a milk vendor (Halwai), was convicted by the trial Court, i.e. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur vide judgment dated 30.9.1993 for the offence under Section 16 (l)(a)(i) read with Section 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter to be called the Act’. In consequence thereof, he was sentenced by the learned trial Court to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. This was on the basis that he was found to be selling adulterated milk. 2. The respondent per force, filed an appeal against the said conviction and sentence which was heard and decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur vide impugned judgment dated 20.5.1994, whereby after setting aside the conviction and sentence, the respondent stands acquitted. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 3. The prosecution case against the respondent at the trial was that he was running a Halwais shop at Village Baru Tehsil and District Hamirpur and was selling milk also. On 20.9.1991 at about 11.30 a.m., the Food Inspector Shri K.S. Verma (PW-1) went to his shop and in presence of witnesses purchased 750 ml. of cows milk (boiled) on payment of price of Rs. 4.50 paise, for testing its purity. Thereafter, the Food inspector is stated to have followed the prescribed procedure under the Act and one of the three samples thus taken, was sent by him to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh while, the remaining two samples alongwith prescribed documents were deposited with the Local Health Authority. 4. The Public Analyst vide his report, found that the sample tested by him contained 10.4% milk fat while milk solid not fat, was 7.4%. In other words, the Public Analyst found the sample deficient in milk solid fat by 13% of the minimum prescribed standard as laid down by the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Consequently, a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act alongwith a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the respondent. Sanction for his prosecution was obtained from the Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur and a complaint was lodged for the aforesaid offence, before the competent Court. 5. Consequently, a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act alongwith a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the respondent. Sanction for his prosecution was obtained from the Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur and a complaint was lodged for the aforesaid offence, before the competent Court. 5. At the trial, the prosecution relied on the statement of three witnesses, namely, K.S. Verma (PW-1 Food Inspector) Lachho Ram (PW-2) stated to be independent witness present at the time of taking the sample of milk from the respondent by PW-1 and a formal witness PW-3, a Clerk from the Office of the Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur. He produced the relevant record containing the sanction order in this case. 6. In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C, the respondent pleaded innocence. He, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence. He having been convicted by the trial Court; and his appeal having been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, has given rise to the present appeal against acquittal, by the State. 7. I have heard Sri Ram Murti Bisht, learned Assistant Advocate General on behalf of the State-appellant and Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the evidence on record. 8. The sole ground, which was weighed with the learned Sessions Judge in recording the acquittal of the respondent, is that the prosecution has not been able to show that the milk had been stirred by the Food Inspector at the time of taking the sample from the utensil of the respondent, i.e. Patila clock-wise and anti clock-wise nor the measure had reached the bottom of the Patila. In these circumstances, according to the learned Sessions Judge, it cannot be treated as if the milk was properly stirred before its sample was purchased by the Food Inspector. In this connection, the learned Sessions Judge has relied on two reported cases, i.e. State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh, (1992 FAJ 412), a Division Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court, as also the case reported as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Chand, (1990 FAJ 526). The ruling cited on behalf of the State, i.e. the prosecution, namely, Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality v. Keringerappully Co-operative Milk Supply Society Limited and others, (1986 Criminal Law Journal 719), has been discarded by the learned Sessions Judge as not convincing. 9. The ruling cited on behalf of the State, i.e. the prosecution, namely, Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality v. Keringerappully Co-operative Milk Supply Society Limited and others, (1986 Criminal Law Journal 719), has been discarded by the learned Sessions Judge as not convincing. 9. The learned Sessions Judge while accepting the appeal and setting aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent, has observed in para 6 of the impugned judgment that Lachho Ram independent witness joined in the proceedings, has denied if the Food Inspector had stirred the milk before purchasing it for analysis from the accused..... However, a perusal of the statement of said Lachho Ram (PW-2) shows that on this aspect of the case, he has stated that in September, 1991 at about 12/ 1 p.m. in the afternoon, the Food Inspector had taken the sample of milk in question, and after stirring it, had put the same in equal parts in three bottles. In this connection, PW-2 has stated in cross-examination that the milk was boiled and contained fat. According to the cross-examination of PW-2, the Food Inspector had taken the sample of milk from the top and had stirred the same. He had not however, shaken the utensil, i.e. the Patila containing milk, nor he had shaken the milk thus taken. The above evidence of PW-2 Lachho Ram has wrongly been interpreted by the learned Sessions Judge to hold that he denied if the Food Inspector had stirred the milk before purchase. 10. Moreover, as against the statement of PW-2, the Food Inspector K.S. Verm a, while deposing as PW-1, has categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that it was the given milk which he had stirred thoroughly and thereafter he had purchased 750 ml. quantity which he had put in three dry and clean bottles. It is thus manifest from the statement of the Food Inspector that he did all that was required to make the milk homogeneous before taking the sample. There is nothing in his cross-examination to show otherwise nor has it been established from the same that he had any particular interest or bias in falsely implicating the respondent. 11. In view of the above discussion, the learned Sessions Judge has taken a hyper-technical view in throwing out the prosecution case against the respondent. There is nothing in his cross-examination to show otherwise nor has it been established from the same that he had any particular interest or bias in falsely implicating the respondent. 11. In view of the above discussion, the learned Sessions Judge has taken a hyper-technical view in throwing out the prosecution case against the respondent. Not only that, he has discarded the evidence in the shape of the report of the Public Analyst which found the sample of milk thus tested, to be adulterated as also the testimony of the Food Inspector, which inspires complete confidence. He has gone to the extent of mis-reading the statement of Lachho Ram (PW-2) the independent witness of this case. 12. In the above circumstances, the rulings relied on by the learned Sessions Judge and referred to above, are clearly distinguishable on facts. In the considered view of this Court, in such type of offences, which affect the health of the citizens of this country, the Courts should not have a purely technical approach in determining the guilt or innocence of accused persons. Once it is found that the procedure prescribed by the Act and the Rules made thereunder has been substantially complied with and there is cogent evidence to support the prosecution case of food adulteration, whether liquid or solid, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that the guilt has been brought home to the errant person and he should be dealt with in accordance with law. 13. Viewed and construed in the above context, the circumstances of the present case resulting in the appeal of the respondent being accepted by the learned Sessions Judge on the sole ground of stirring the milk and thus acquitting him, has resulted in mis-carriage of justice. 14. In fairness to Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent, he has first submitted that impugned judgment is based on the fact that in view of the ambivalent statement of the independent witness, namely, Lachho Ram (PW-2) regarding the factum of stirring of the milk by the Food Inspector before taking its sample, the categorical evidence of the Food Inspector (PW-1) in this behalf was not sufficient to base conviction of the appellant. In the circumstances of the case discussed above, I do not find force in this plea of the respondent. 15. In the circumstances of the case discussed above, I do not find force in this plea of the respondent. 15. Shri Kuldeep Singh has then argued that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence is quite logical and convincing and even if, a contrary view to the one taken by him is possible, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the former should be adopted as it is based on the well recognised legal dictum that in criminal trials etc., where two views are possible, the one favouring the prosecution and other favouring the accused, the latter should be adopted, as presumption of innocence of the accused till found guilty is always present. However, in this case, only one view is possible i.e. guilt of the respondent. 16. My attention has been drawn to a recent reported decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Dharam Singh, (1997 (3) Sim LC 37). It has been held therein on the facts of that case, the milk was not made homogeneous before taking the sample by the Food Inspector and the failure on the part of the prosecution to prove that the milk was made homogeneous, creates a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. However, in the present case, the evidence of the Food Inspector is categorical on this point that he had in fact stirred the milk before taking/ purchasing 750 ml. quantity as sample, in compliance with the requirement of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. In substance, this means that he had made the milk homogeneous before taking the sample as he had stirred it. In this context, even PW-2 has not omitted to mention that the Food Inspector had stirred the milk before taking the sample, as is clear from that part of his statement, mentioned above in this judgment where PW-2 has mentioned about the stirring of milk. In other words, from his testimony also it can be made out that the milk was made homogeneous. 17. In other words, from his testimony also it can be made out that the milk was made homogeneous. 17. In passing, it may be mentioned that the Division Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, relied on by the learned Sessions Judge, i.e. State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh (supra) is to the effect that if the sample was taken by the Food Inspector without stirring and making it homogeneous, the same was fatal to the prosecution case. It is manifest that this ruling, as also the rulings relied on by the learned Sessions Judge, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, are clearly distinguishable. 18. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted. Consequently, acquittal of the respondent by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur vide impugned judgment dated 20.5.1994 is set aside and he is convicted for the offence under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 (1) of the Act. 19. Coming now to the sentence, which is required to be imposed in the present case. As pointed out by Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent, the above deficiency in milk solid not fat as found by the Public Analyst, is marginal only. Secondly, the sample was taken in September, 1991, almost seven years earlier. Taking the circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice will be met by sentencing the respondent to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of which he is to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one month.