JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Food Inspector after obtaining Special Leave u/s. 378(4) of the CrPC against the Judgment dated 12.8.1988 of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, passed in Cr A.No. 24/85, by which the respondent-Narmada Prasad has been acquitted of the charges u/s. 7 (1) read with section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the judgment of the trial Court convicting him for the said offence has been set aside. The appellant-Food Inspector was posted in the Municipality, Hoshangabad, as a sanitary Inspector having been conferred the powers of the Food Inspector. He noticed the respondent/accused vending milk at Jail Naka, Hoshangabad on 22.6.1982 and after disclosing his identity, gave him notice in form IV Ex. P-1 and purchased 660 mili-litres of buffalo milk for which he paid one rupee 35 paisa to the accused of which receipt Ex. P-2 was obtained. The milk so purchased was drawn into three parts and sealed in bottles after adding formalin to it. After complying with other requirements of law and on finding that sample of milk was below the prescribed standard as per the report Ex. P-8 of the Laboratory, the respondent was prosecuted for the said offence and convicted by the trial Court. The respondent-accused challenged his conviction before the Sessions Court, Hoshangabad and by the said impugned judgment, he has been acquitted of the charge against him and hence, the present appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the impugned judgment and has contended that the only ground which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has taken into consideration in basing the order of acquittal is that there was no evidence that while taking the sample of milk from the accused, the complainant had taken any step to make the article of food homogeneous. Learned Additional Sessions Judge as thus, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Food Inspector v. Madanlal Ramlal Sharma and another ( AIR 1983 SC 176 ), come to the conclusion that the sample drawn was not a representative sample and on that basis acquitted the respondent-accused. Learned Additional Sessions Judge as thus, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Food Inspector v. Madanlal Ramlal Sharma and another ( AIR 1983 SC 176 ), come to the conclusion that the sample drawn was not a representative sample and on that basis acquitted the respondent-accused. Learned counsel contends that no question was put to the Food Inspector to indicate that he had failed to make the article of food namely milk homogeneous before proceeding to take sample of the said article and, therefore, it should have been presumed that the milk had been first made homogeneous before sample was purchased. In the case of Food Inspector v. Madanlal (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that in milk and milk preparations including curd, it is distinctly possible that the fat settles on the top and in order to find out whether the milk or its preparation such as curd has prescribed content, the sample must be homogeneous and representative so that the .analysis can furnish reliable proof of nature and content of the article of food under analysis. This clearly indicates that in the sample of article of food like milk, unless it is shown and demonstrated that it was representative of the article of food, it cannot be said that the sample duly represented the contents of the article of which the same was drawn. In the evidence of the complainant who examined himself as PW 2 before the trial Court, he has no where stated that he took any step to make the milk homogeneous before obtaining the sample by purchase of 660 m.l. thereof. Under these circumstances, it is clear that there was no evidence to indicate that the sample was representative of the article of food and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has, therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that accused could not be held guilty of the offence alleged. Since the conclusion arrived at by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is possible from the evidence on record, merely because the accused has not challenged the same by way of cross-examination of the complainant to bring out this fact that the sample had not been made homogeneous, a contrary view cannot be taken in an appeal against acquittal. Under these circumstances, no interference is called for in the present appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.