JUDGMENT This criminal appeal has been filed by the State-appellant against the judgment and order dated 20.7.1987 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Burhanpur, District East Nimar in criminal case No. 1255/84 whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted of charge under section 16(1) (a) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (In short 'The Act'). The prosecution case in brief was that the accused-respondent was carrying Kirana business at Village Nimar Tahsil Burhanpur, District Khandwa (East Nimar). On 29.9.1983 the complainant Food Inspector V.K. Bhatnagar (PW1) after giving notice in Form No.6 to respondent-accused, purchased 375 gram of tea from his shop who was keeping the same in his possession for sale. The complainant, then kept the purchased tea separately ~n three dry and clean packet in equal proportion. Each packet was labelled, securely fastened and sealed as per rules. After complying all the formalities. one packet was sent to the PublIc Analyst. Bhopal for analysis. Public analyst, after analysing the contents of the packet submitted report (Ex. P-7). According to the report (Ex. P-7) the tea was not found to the standard as laid down under Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 1955 (in short "the Rules"). The purchased tea was, thus, found adulterated. On the basis of the complaint filed by the Food Inspector, charge u/s 16(1) (a) of the Act was framed against the accused-respondent. The learded trial Court, after evaluating the evidence and other material on record held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court further held that since there was no credible evidence to show whether purchased item was' 'tea" or' 'Kangra tea", therefore, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Accordingly the accused was acquitted of the charge by the trial Court. Against this judgment and order the appellant-State has filed this appeal. The learned panel lawyer appearing for the State-appellant contended that finding of the trial Court is erroneous as it was clear that the complainant purchased the item knowing it "Kangra tea". Under ~he circumstances, further contended the learned panel lawyer for the State, the order of the trial Court is not sustainable. On the contrary the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused urged that the prosecution could not establish whether it was "tea" or "Kangra-tea" and therefore the finding of the trial Court was proper which seeds no interferences. Under ~he circumstances, further contended the learned panel lawyer for the State, the order of the trial Court is not sustainable. On the contrary the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused urged that the prosecution could not establish whether it was "tea" or "Kangra-tea" and therefore the finding of the trial Court was proper which seeds no interferences. Having gone through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution we are of the opinion that the contention of learned panel lawyer for the State has no substance. There are two varities of tea one "tea" and another "Kangra-tea" as enumerated in clause A-14 and A-14.01 of Appendix 'B' of the Rules. It is thus quite evident that the purchased item should be either "tea" or "Kangra-tea". The complainant V.K. Bhatnagar (PW 1) has deposed in para 6 of his statement that he even does not know whether there are classifications in the item "tea". He has further deposed that he took the sample knowing it as "tea" and he did not understand whether there was any item known as "Kangra-tea". He has also stated in the same paragraph that he forwarded the pocket of purchased item to the Public Analyst knowing it to be "tea". When there are two different items one enumerated as "tea" and the other "Kangra-tea" in the Rules, it is really surprising that the complainant, Food Inspector (PW 1) does not understand the difference between the two items. A careful serutiny of the report of the Public Analyst (Ex. P-7) reveals that· he analysed the purchased item in accordance with the standard fixed for "Kangra-tea" . It is, thus, quite evident that the Food Inspector V.K. Bhatnagar (PW 1) purchased the item knowing it to be "tea" while the Public analyst analysed it on the basis of specification fixed for' 'Kangra-tea". On perusal of Clauses A-14 and A-14.01 of Appendix B of the Rules, it becomes clear that for item "tea'" one of the specifications is "Ash insoluble in HCL" while for item "Kangra-tea", one of the specifications is "Ash insoluble in dilute hydrochloric Acid". The Public Analyst analysed the purchased item on the basis of specification prescribed for "Kangra-tea", while, as discussed above, the Food Inspector took the sample knowing it as "tea". The Public Analyst analysed the purchased item on the basis of specification prescribed for "Kangra-tea", while, as discussed above, the Food Inspector took the sample knowing it as "tea". In view of the above, the finding of the learned trial Court that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the item purchased by the Food Inspector was really adultereted as per standard prescribed therefor is not found erroneous. Consequently we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of the learned trial Court. The appeal has, thus, no force which deserves to be dismissed. Hence, it is hereby dismissed. The accused-respondent is directed to appear before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khandwa (East Nimar) to know the result of the appeal on 27th August, 1999.