JUDGMENT 1. - This State appeal is directed against the order of acquittal dated 30.1.82 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Sumerpur, acquitting the accused respondent of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The prosecution case is that Food Inspector Shri Madan Lal on 28.8.79 took a sample of milk from the accused and after observing the formalities, sent the sample for chemical examination. The public analyst found the sample adulterated. Thus, a complaint was filed in the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate I Class, Sumerpur against the accused respondent for the offence under Section 7/16 of the said Act. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent on the ground that two motbirs have not supported the prosecution case. The learned Magistrate relying on a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that simply because the fat contents are less, it cannot be said that water is added in the milk and on that basis, the milk cannot be said to be adulterated. 3. I am unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Magistrate so far as these two grounds are concerned. However, from a perusal of the evidence' it appears that the Food Inspector did not stir the milk before he took the sample. In my view, this was a fatal infirmity in the case and the same has caused serious prejudice to the respondent and on this ground alone, the order of acquittal deserves to be upheld. 4. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******