Judgment This is an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent for an offence under section 16(1)(b)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in that the accused prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorised under this Act. The facts of the case are these. The accused is a licensed ghee dealer. On the day of the occurrence, that is 9th May, 1956, P.W.1, the Sanitary Inspector, accompanied by another Sanitary Inspector, F.W.2, and two other persons went to the shoo of the accused for taking a sample of the ghee. But there was no ghee available in the shop. The Sanitary Inspector did not find even an oven there for melting butter. He therefore asked the accused as to where he melted butter. The accused took him to his house and showed him the oven where he incited the butter. He (P.W.1) then found three tins, one of which alone contained two viss of ghee. He asked for a sample out of the said ghee. The accused refused. Then the wit less attempted to take a sample; but the accused prevented him from doing so, by pouring the entire ghee in the oven. The question is whether, on these facts, it can he stated, that an offence under section 16(1)(b)is made out. On the very evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that he went over to the shop for purchasing the sample. Because he did not find even an oven there, he asked as a matter of information as to where the oven was. The accused then took him tohis house; and there, he (P.W.1) found two viss of ghee in one of the open tins when the other two tins were empty. There is no proof that this two viss of ghee which was kept in the house was intended for sale. If they were in the shop, then it would be presumed to be for the sale. Only if there was ghee or butter which was intended for sale and of which the sample is asked for by the Sanitary Inspector and if that was prevented from being taken, then, an offence under section 16(1)(b)would have been committed. But that is not established in this case, as the ghee that was in the house has not been proved to be for sale. But that is not established in this case, as the ghee that was in the house has not been proved to be for sale. If the Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused on this ground, there will be no trouble whatsoever. But the learned Judge seems to have based the acquittal on another around, namely, that two independent and respectable witnesses have not been taken, as required by section 10(7) of the Act. But section 10(7) comes into play only when samples are taken. It is introduced by way of guarantee that the Sanitary Inspector has taken the particular sample from the accused. But when no sample has been given, section 10(7) does not come in at all. There is nothing to comply with the provisions of section 10(7) in such circumstances. If the acquittal was based on this ground, it is only liable to be set aside. But the grounds given are untenable. However, as I have pointed out, that on the merits of the case there is no proof that the Prosecuting Inspector went into the house of the accused who took him to show only the place of melting, the ghee that the accused had was not intended for sale, and therefore no offence was made out under section 16(1)(b). On this ground, the accused is entitled to an acquittal; and so, I would not interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the lower Court. This appeal is dismissed. R.M. ----- Appeal dismissed.