JUDGMENT M.R. VERMA, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment dated July 4, 1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur whereby the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused/respondent (hereafter referred to as the accused’) by the learned Judicial Magistrate I-Class, Hamirpur under Section 16 (l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) has been set aside and the accused has been acquitted of the said offence. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused is running a Karyana’ shop in village Lambloo. On November 28, 1991, PW-1 K.S. Verma, Food Inspector visited the shop of the accused and purchased 600 gms. of Besan for the purpose of sample on payment of price. The sample was thereafter divided into three equal parts and was kept in three neat, clean and dry bottles and was thereafter dealt with in accordance with the manner provided therefor. On analysis, the Public Analyst vide report Ext. PF found that the sample contained maize starch as an admixture whereas Besan should not contain any foreign ingredients. Thus, the Besan in question was found adulterated. After obtaining due sanction, PW-1 K.S. Verma initiated the prosecution of the accused by lodging a complaint against him under Section 16 (l)(a)(i) of the Act. 3. The accused came to tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I-Class (I), Hamirpur who vide his judgment dated February 27, 1993 held the accused guilty of the commission of offence punishable under Section 16 (l)(a)(i) of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur who vide the impugned judgment acquitted the accused after setting aside the conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned trial Magistrate. The State has now come up in this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the accused. 6. The State has now come up in this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the accused. 6. It was argued by the learned Deputy Advocate General that as per the report of the Public Analyst Ex.PF, the sample in question contained maize starch, a foreign substance, therefore, the Besan sample was adulterated within the meaning of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the accused could not have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the quantity of maize starch found in the sample was not specifically mentioned by him in the report. To support his contention, the learned Deputy Advocate General has cited a few judgments which need not be reproduced/referred to here, for the reason that the correct proposition of law is that where a standard for any food article has been prescribed by the Statute, nothing can be added to or substracted therefrom when it comes to decide whether an article of food was adulterated or not. The standard of quality of Besan is specified in Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Para No. A-18.04 prescribed the standard for Besan and reads as follows: "BESAN means the product obtained by grinding dehusked Bangal (Cicer arietinum) and shall not contain any added colouring matter or any other foreign ingredient." Thus, presence of any added colouring matter or any other foreign ingredient in Besan, if found, the Besan will not be as per the standard and, thus, will be adulterated. 7. Raising no dispute about the aforesaid settled proposition of law, the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused is two-fold, viz., (1) the manner in which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector was not proper inasmuch as it left room for mixing of maize starch with the sample at the time of taking it and (2) that no independent witness was joined in the process of taking of the sample and that the effect of each lapse committed at the time of taking of the sample by the Food Inspector is that the accused was entitled for acquittal and has rightly been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. 8. 8. The precise submission about the first contention is that the Besan, sample whereof was taken, was weighed with the scale lying in the shop where apart from Besan and other food articles, even maize flour was kept for sale and the only measure of weighing the articles of food being sold to the customers, was the scale with which the sample was weighed. Thus, some small quantity of maize flour left in the balance may have got mixed with the Besan sample, is a strong possibility which cannot be ruled out because none of the prosecution witnesses have stated that the balance was clean before putting the Besan therein for the purpose of weighing it. The submission made by the learned defence Counsel cannot be said to be without merit and substance. It is admitted by PW-1 K.S. Verma, Food Inspector, that the accused sells maize floor, wheat, rice and other Karyana articles. Similarly, PW-3 Mehar Chand has admitted that the accused also sells maize flour and wheat. Thus, it cannot be disputed that the other food stuff kept in the shop of the accused was weighed in the same scale with which the sample of Besan was weighed. The possibility of some maize flour having remained in the scale and got mixed up with the sample of Besan can, therefore, not be conveniently ruled out, more so when none of the prosecution witnesses has stated that before putting the Besan in the scale, it was clean or the sample Besan was taken therein after putting thereon some paper etc. Mixing of the larger quantity of maize starch in the Besan, in the aforesaid circumstances, though is not possible, but mixing of nominal quantity cannot be ruled out. However, from the report of the Public Analyst Ex.PF it cannot be found as to what was the quantity of maize starch found as an admixture in the sample. Thus, against the aforesaid background and in the absence of some substantial quantity of maize starch having been found in the sample, the benefit of doubt, on this score, must go to the accused. 9. Thus, against the aforesaid background and in the absence of some substantial quantity of maize starch having been found in the sample, the benefit of doubt, on this score, must go to the accused. 9. Regarding second contention raised for the defence, be it stated that Section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act makes it obligatory on the Food Inspector that while taking sample of a food article, he shall call one or more persons to be present at the time when the sample is taken and take his/their signatures. The provision is evidently intended to ensure that the process of taking the sample by the Food Inspector is witnessed by one or two other persons called for the purpose by the Food Inspector. Such person(s) must be dis-interested and, thus, the taking of the sample must be witnessed by one or two independent witness(es) to lend credibility to the version of the Food Inspector when examined in the Court. In the present case, the Food Inspector associated PW-3 Mehar Chand in the process of seizing the sample. Said Mehar Chand is, admittedly, an employee of the Health Department and, therefore, cannot be said to be an independent witness. This is not the case of the prosecution that some independent witness was not available on the spot for being associated in the process of taking the sample nor it is the case of the prosecution that the Food Inspector made efforts to join some independent witness but could not succeed. On the contrary, it is admitted by PW-1 K.S. Verma, Food Inspector that close to the shop of the accused are four-five other shops including a Maniyari shop and a tailoring shop. A person dealing in Maniyari or tailoring, not dealing in food articles, could be the independent witnesses and could be called to witness the process of taking the sample which the Food Inspector has failed to do. Against the aforesaid background, non joining of an independent witness to witness the process of taking the sample by the Food Inspector nor assigning any reason therefor, is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 10. In view of the above discussion, the order of acquittal, though passed by the learned Sessions Judge on different grounds, calls for no interference by this Court. 11. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 10. In view of the above discussion, the order of acquittal, though passed by the learned Sessions Judge on different grounds, calls for no interference by this Court. 11. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal dismissed.