JUDGMENT R.L. KHURANA, J.—The respondent, Pala, on having been tried for the offence under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in criminal case No. 222/3 of 1989 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, was convicted for the said offence on 30.6.1992 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. 2. On appeal, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the respondent by the learned Magistrate was set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan. Vide judgment dated 16.10.1993 passed in criminal appeal No. 18 N/10 of 1992, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of the offence charged against him. By virtue of the present appeal preferred under Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, the State has assailed the acquittal of the respondent as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 3. As per the prosecution story, the respondent on 9.5.1989 at about 10.00 a.m. was intercepted by Shri S.N. Sharma, Food Inspector, in the area of Katcha Tank, Nahan, while he was having about 30 kgs. of cows milk in a drum for sale to the general public. The Food Inspector purchased 750 mis. of milk from the respondent as sample for the purpose of analysis. Such sample on having been analysed was found to be adulterated since the fat contents as well as milk. solids not fat were found much below the minimum prescribed standard. The deficiency in milk fat was found to be to the extent of 63% while milk solids not fat was found to be deficient by 22%. 4. On having been put to trial, the respondent after having denied the prosecution story pleaded that the milk did not belong to him. On the relevant date, he was coming from bus stand towards Nahan Bazar along with his two friends. The Food Inspector after having taken the sample of milk from the shop of one Maya Ram, Halwai, had obtained his (respondents) signatures on certain papers and thereafter falsely implicated him in the present case. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting the respondent came to the conclusion that the respondent was neither a milk vendor nor the milk out of which the sample was taken belonged to him. 6. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting the respondent came to the conclusion that the respondent was neither a milk vendor nor the milk out of which the sample was taken belonged to him. 6. The prosecution case primarily rests on the testimony of PW 1 Shri S.N. Sharma Food Inspector and PW 2 Maya Ram the independent witness alleged to have been associated by the Food Inspector while taking the sample of milk. Admittedly, PW 2 Maya Ram is a Halwai and a milk vendor. PW 2 has admitted that he sells about three quintals of milk daily. He has further stated that he was getting the supplies of milk from various milk vendors including the respondent. It is in evidence of both PW 1 and PW 2 that milk drums were lying at the shop of PW 2 Maya Ram including the drum from which sample was taken by PW 1. Assuming that the milk from which sample was taken by PW 1 had been supplied to PW 2 by the respondent In such an event the sample would be deemed to have been taken by PW 1 while the milk was under the control and in possession of PW 2. Therefore, PW 2 would be deemed to be the owner of such milk for further sale to the general public. As such, it cannot be said that the sample of milk was taken by PW 1 from the respondent. 7. DW 1 Deepak Kumar at the relevant time was taking tea at the shop of PW 2 Maya Ram. He has fully corroborated the defence version to the effect that the sample of milk was taken by PW 1 from the shop of PW 2 Maya Ram. 8. The Food Inspector has himself stated that the respondent was not holding any milk vendor licence. Though the respondent was found to have contravened the provisions of the Act for not possessing the requisite licence, which contravention is an offence punishable under the law, admittedly the Food Inspector did not charge him for that offence. 9. In Shahniwaj v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1989 (2) F.A.C. 164), the accused therein did not have any licence of the sale of milk. The Food Inspector did not challan him on this count either at the stage of taking the sample or at any subsequent stage. 9. In Shahniwaj v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1989 (2) F.A.C. 164), the accused therein did not have any licence of the sale of milk. The Food Inspector did not challan him on this count either at the stage of taking the sample or at any subsequent stage. A learned Single Judge of this Court held that the failure of the Food Inspector to challan the accused therein either at the time of taking of the sample or at any subsequent stage would show that the accused was not a milk vendor. 10. The ratio laid down in Shahniwaj case (supra) applies to the facts of the present case on all fours. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, therefore, rightly held that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the respondent was a milk vendor and that the sample of milk was taken from him. 11. There is yet another aspect of the case The Food Inspector has failed to join independent witnesses at the time of taking the sample as required under Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Evidence has come on the record that independent witnesses were available. No effort appears to have been made by the Food inspector to join them. He preferred to associate only PW 2 as a witness. PW 2 being a milk vendor himself cannot be said to be an independent witness. He is always under the influence of the Food Inspector Besides, as pointed out above, the milk from which sample was taken belonged to PW 2. It appears that in order to shield him, he has been named as an eye-witness. Ex. P-3 is the memo alleged to have been prepared by the Food Inspector at the spot while taking the sample of milk. A perusal of the same shows that there is no mention about the Food Inspector having made any effort to associate and join independent witnesses or that inspite of efforts made, no independent witnesses prepared to join. The High Court of Allahabad in Faqirey La! v. State (1998 FAJ 3) has held that the fact that no independent witness was prepared to give evidence, must be mentioned in the memo prepared at the spot and on the failure to do so no conviction can be sustained. 12. The High Court of Allahabad in Faqirey La! v. State (1998 FAJ 3) has held that the fact that no independent witness was prepared to give evidence, must be mentioned in the memo prepared at the spot and on the failure to do so no conviction can be sustained. 12. In the present case also, on the failure of the Food Inspector to mention in the memo that no independent witness was prepared to give evidence, no conviction can be maintained. 13. Resultantly, the acquittal of the respondent as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge calls for no interference The appeal being without merit is dismissed. The bail bonds of the respondent shall stand cancelled and discharged. Appeal dismissed.