JUDGMENT This is an appeal under S. 378 CrPC by the State against the acquittal of the respondent of the charge of the offence under S. 7 read with S. 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 954 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kukshi in Cr. Case No. 748 of 1984. On 17.5.1984, PW 1 Babulal, Food Inspector, had purchased 6 ml. of milk from the respondent, after giving due notice to him, for the Public Analyst. The complainant made three samples of the milk and after observing the necessary formalities sent a sample to the Public Analyst, Bhopal, who on chemical examination of the sample found the sample adulterated as per Ex. P-10. After obtaining the sanction from the Dy. Director of Health, the prosecution was launched against the respondent. Accordingly cognizance of the offence was taken. The prosecution examined only PW 1 Babulal, Food Inspector in support of its case. The trial Court on consideration of his evidence acquitted the respondent. Shri A. Salim, Panel Lawyer, of the appellant-State has fairly conceded that there is no substance in this appeal as the complainant Babulal (PW 1) was simply a Sanitary Inspector and he was not vested with the powers of Food Inspector. Therefore, the prosecution case launched against the respondent was illegal. He also placed reliance in 1987 CrLJ, 46 [Nirmal Kumar v. State of M.P.]. Thus, it is evident that Babulal (PW 1) was not competent to take samples of the milk for the purpose of Public Analyst. The finding of acquittal of the respondent by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse. There is no substance or merit in the appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.