JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment dated 6.9.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur whereby the conviction of and sentence imposed on the accused-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused ) under Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, has been set aside. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW-1 K.S. Verma, Food Inspector, purchased cloves from the business premises of the accused on 3.9.1992 at about 5.45 p.m. for analysis. On analysis of the part of the sample sent to the Public Analyst, the sample was not found to be conforming to the prescribed standard inasmuch as the sample was found to contain organic extraneous matter 3.15% by weight against the maximum prescribed standard of 2%. Therefore, after obtaining the written consent of the competent authority, the Food Inspector launched the prosecution against the accused, who came to be tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the accusations under Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Act and was finally convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay afine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal which was heard and accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur and the conviction of and sentence awarded to the accused were set aside and he was acquitted of the accusations. Hence the present appeal by the State. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State and the learned Counsel for the accused and have also gone through the record. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused on the following grounds : (I) That the Food Inspector while taking sample has not disclosed to the accused that he was purchasing the article of food for the purpose of sample. (II) That no independent witness has been joined in the process of taking of the sample. (III) That the report of the Public Analyst is invalid. 6. The conviction was also assailed before the lower appellate Court on the ground that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act have not been complied with. However, the Court below has not touched this aspect of the matter in the impugned judgment. (III) That the report of the Public Analyst is invalid. 6. The conviction was also assailed before the lower appellate Court on the ground that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act have not been complied with. However, the Court below has not touched this aspect of the matter in the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel for the accused has, however, contended that even on this ground the acquittal order is supportable. 7. It has been stated by PW-1 K.S. Verma, that on visiting the business premises of the accused, he disclosed his identity to the accused and after serving notice Ex. PA purchased the cloves. Notice Ex. PA contains that the sample of article of food 375 grams of cloves was taken for the purpose of analysis. Thus, it cannot be held that the sample was purchased by the Food Inspector without intimating the accused that it was purchased for the purpose of analysis. The accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. has admitted these facts. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, has erred in holding that the sample in question was purchased by the Food Inspector without informing the accused that it was meant for analysis. Therefore, the ground (I) supra as a basis for acquittal of the accused is unsustainable. 8. It indisputably emerges from evidence that PW-3 Mai Ram, so called independent witness joined to witness the process of taking sample by the Food Inspector was, at the relevant time, running a Karyana shop. A person who himself was dealing in the sale of food articles within the jurisdiction of the Food Inspector cannot be said to be an independent witness. The requirement of calling one or more person by the Food Inspector to be present at the time of taking sample is not an empty formality but a requirement of law to lend assurance that the Food Inspector has taken the sample in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Therefore, the witness (s) to be so called must be independent of the influence of the Food Inspector failing which the process of taking the sample may be rendered suspicious, more-so in a case where the failure to join independent witness is despite availability of such witnesses. It is not disputed that in the close vicinity of the shop of accused there is a cloth shop and another of a dealer in iron. It is not disputed that in the close vicinity of the shop of accused there is a cloth shop and another of a dealer in iron. There is no explanation as to why the persons from such shops were not called to witness the sample taking process. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge that the sample was not taken in the presence of independent witnesses is sustainable. (See State of H.P. v. Roop Ram (1989 SLJ 595). 9. The report of the Public Analyst Ex. PH mentions the result of analysis and his opinion as follows: "1. Inorganic extraneous matter= 0.023% by weight. 2. Organic extraneous matter = 3.15% by weight. 3. Insect infestation = Nil. 4. Insect damaged clove = Nil. 5. Added colouring matter = Absent. The opinion of the Public Analyst is as under: Organic extraneous matter is 3.15% against the maximum prescribed standard of 2 per cent in the sample of laung (cloves) while." 10. The learned Sessions Judge while coming to the conclusion that accused could not be prosecuted on the basis of the above report observed vide para 9 of the impugned judgment as follows : "In the instant case also, the report of the Public Analyst (Ext. PH) does not indicate whether in the organic extraneous matter, vegetable matter of plants other than cloves (peduncle) mother cloves or other matters of plants of cloves etc. were included or not. If these were not included then as per the above standard, these were required to be included and resultantly the accused could not have been prosecuted." 11. A. 05.07 Appendix (B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules defines cloves (Laung) as follows : "A. 05.07.—Cloves (Laung) while means the dried, unopened flower buds of Eugenia Caryophyllus (C. Sprengel) Bullock and Harrison. The inorganic extraneous matter shall not exceed 0.5 per cent by weight and the organic extraneous matter, which includes vegetable matter of plants other than cloves tendril cloves (peduncle) mother cloves or other matters of plants of cloves, shall not exceed two per cent, by weight. (Headless cloves shall not be considered as extraneous matter). The amount of insect-damaged clove shall not exceed 1.0 per cent, by weight. The cloves (on dry basis) shall contain not less than 15.0 per cent, (v/w) of volatile oil. It shall be free from added colouring matter. (Headless cloves shall not be considered as extraneous matter). The amount of insect-damaged clove shall not exceed 1.0 per cent, by weight. The cloves (on dry basis) shall contain not less than 15.0 per cent, (v/w) of volatile oil. It shall be free from added colouring matter. Explanation (i) The term "insect-damaged clove" means the cloves that are partially or wholly bored by insects. (ii) The term "headless cloves" means cloves constituted only by the receptacle and sepals." 12. It is evident from a bare reading of the above definition that to conform to the prescribed standard, apart from other qualifying standards, the organic extraneous matter therein shall not exceed two per cent by weight. The expressions "organic extraneous matter" has been defined in the above definition itself and includes vegetable matter of plants other than cloves, tendril cloves, mother cloves or other matters of plants of cloves but headless cloves shall not be considered as extraneous matter. Therefore, the data required to be given in the report about the result of analysis is as to how much organic extraneous matter was found in the sample. The details of each and every component part of organic extraneous matter are not to be separately indicated as they are covered with the expression "organic extraneous matters" which, to conform to the prescribed standard, should not exceed two per cent by weight. In case they do exceed the prescribed limit, the article of food shall not be in conformity with the prescribed standard. 13. Once an article of food is found not to conform to the prescribed standard, it has to be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of Section 2(ia)(m) of the Act. In such a case, the express opinion of the Public Analyst that the article of food is adulterated or injurious to health is not required and the opinion that the article of food is not as per the prescribed standard shall justify the prosecution of the ac9used. 14. In this case it is crystal clear from the opinion vide Ex. PH that the sample of cloves did not conform to the prescribed standard, therefore, prosecution of accused on the basis of the report Ex. PH is lawful and the conclusions of the lower appellate Court to the contrary is not sustainable. 15. 14. In this case it is crystal clear from the opinion vide Ex. PH that the sample of cloves did not conform to the prescribed standard, therefore, prosecution of accused on the basis of the report Ex. PH is lawful and the conclusions of the lower appellate Court to the contrary is not sustainable. 15. The learned Counsel for the accused, in support of the impugned judgment of acquittal, has contended that in this case there is non-compliance of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act and had taken me through the relevant material on record. 16. From the perusal of para 3 of the impugned judgment, it appears that the plea of non-compliance of Section 13 of the Act was taken before the lower appellate Court but does not appear to have been decided. In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C, the accused has specifically denied the receipt of the registered cover containing the notice and a copy of the report of the Public Analyst and has denied his signatures on the AD receipt Ex. PW-2/C. PW-2 Daljit Singh, a clerk in the office of the Local Health Authority, Hamirpur has stated that the intimation letter and the report of the Public Analyst was sent by him to the accused under Registered AD cover and the postal receipt and acknowledgement thereof are respectively Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-2/C. In his cross-examination, he has, however, admitted that the name of the addressee in the postal receipt Ex. PW-2/B is over-written and the particulars of the address of the accused namely "shopkeeper Akkar" has not been mentioned therein. He has further admitted that the acknowledgement Ex. PW-2/C mentions only the name of the accused and his fathers name. He has denied that he has mentioned the wrong address of the accused. The statement of this witness in this regard is false. It is evident from a bare perusal of the notice Ex. PA, form Ex. PC and notice Ex. PW-2/A that the particulars of the address of the accused as contained in Ex. PA and Ex. PC are not the same as given in the notice Ex. PW-2/A, inasmuch as the accused has not been described in the latter as a Tkaryana shopkeeper. PA, form Ex. PC and notice Ex. PW-2/A that the particulars of the address of the accused as contained in Ex. PA and Ex. PC are not the same as given in the notice Ex. PW-2/A, inasmuch as the accused has not been described in the latter as a Tkaryana shopkeeper. In the postal receipt Ex.PW-2/B, it is apparent to naked eye that the name of the addressee therein had been earlier given as Surinder Kumar, but subsequently the word Surinder has been re-written as Bipin rendering the correctness of this receipt as suspicious. In the AD, the complete address of the accused has not been given. Only his name and parentage has been mentioned therein. Ex.PW-2/C though appears to have been signed by Bipan Kumar but these signatures are in Hindi and has been denied to be his signatures by the accused on oath while appearing as DW-1. Be it stated that there is a good number of documents on record signed by the accused before and after launching of the prosecution against him. However, none of such documents has been signed by him in Hindi leading to the inference that he usually signs in English. This conclusion is further strengthened by the suggestions put to the accused (DW-1) in his cross-examination that he had deliberately got the acknowledgement signed from some-one else. 17. Thus, there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to prove that the alleged registered envelop containing the notice and the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was duly posted to and received by the accused. Therefore, there has been no proper compliance of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act which is fatal to the prosecution case. (See N.D. Sutar, Food Inspector v. Chabulal Mahadu Chaudhari and another, 1989 (1) Food Adulteration Cases 252). 18. In view of the findings that the sample was not taken in the presence of the independent witnesses and that there has been non-compliance of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act as recorded hereinabove, the impugned order of acquittal does not call for any interference. 19. As a result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 20. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal dismissed.