JUDGMENT M.R. VERMA, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment dated September 6, 1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu whereby the conviction of and sentence awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu to the accused/respondent (hereinafter referred to as accused) in Complaint Case No. 126-I/93/66-III/ 93, under Section 16 (l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereafter referred to as Act) was set aside and the accused was acquitted. 2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that PW-1, P.L. Sharma, Food Inspector, Kullu visited the shop premises of the accused known as Kaundal General Store at Badah on November 24, 1992 at about 12.05 p.m. when the accused was attending the shop as servant. Wheat flour for sale to the general public was displayed in the shop. The Food Inspector expressed his intention to purchase the sample of the wheat flour from the accused and gave him a notice Ext. PW- I/A in the presence of PW Paramjit Singh. After purchasing 600 grams of wheat flour from the accused for the consideration paid in the sum of Rs, 2.75 vide receipt Ext. PW- 1/B, the Food Inspector allegedly dealt with the sample as per the rules. On analysis, the wheat flour sample was found to contain moisture to the extent of 14.5% as against the maximum prescribed limit of 14% under the Act vide report Ext. PW-l/H of the Public Analyst. Hence, the accused came to be tried under Section 16 (l)(a)(i) of the Act on the basis of a complaint lodged by PW-1 Food Inspector P.L. Sharma under Section 20 (1) of the Act in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned trial Court found the accused guilty of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 16 (l)(a)(i) of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/-. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who vide the impugned judgment acquitted the accused. Feeling aggrieved, the State has come up in appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the accused. 5. 1,000/-. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who vide the impugned judgment acquitted the accused. Feeling aggrieved, the State has come up in appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the accused. 5. The reasons recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, as a consequence whereof the conviction of and sentence awarded to the accused by the learned trial Magistrate were set aside, are two fold; viz. (i) that before lifting the sample, the wheat flour was not made homogeneous so as to make the sample as of representative character and (ii) that on the basis of evidence on record it could not be held that the sample was put in neat, dry and clean bottles. 6. Regarding the first reason for setting aside the conviction of and sentence awarded to the accused as mentioned here-above, the learned Additional Advocate General has contended that it was not necessary for the Food Inspector to mix the wheat flour to make it homogeneous before taking the sample. In support of his contention, the learned Additional Advocate General has cited the case State of Haryana v. Hukum Chand, (1984 (1) 250) in which a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held as follows :— "3. In our considered opinion the grounds taken by the learned trial Magistrate have no relevance in the instant case. The necessity of thoroughly mixing the total quantity of the material applies to a case wherein sample of milk is taken because it is a matter of common knowledge that the upper layer of the milk usually contains more of cream. This principle cannot be extended to the case of adulterated Atta. Secondly if the respondent was keeping atta in a shop where it was likely to be contaminated with dust, he cannot take benefit of this ground because he is under an obligation to keep atta, which is an edible object, in such a manner that it does not get mixed up with dust. We, therefore, allow this appeal, convict the respondent under Section 16 (l)(a)(i), Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and order that he should pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month." 7. We, therefore, allow this appeal, convict the respondent under Section 16 (l)(a)(i), Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and order that he should pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month." 7. On the strength of the above decision, the learned Assistant Advocatp General submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as aforesaid is based on misconception of law. 8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused has adopted the reasoning of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and has submitted that it was legally necessary to mix the wheat flour to make it homogeneous before taking the sample thereof and the failure to do so was fatal to the case of the prosecution. In support of her contention, the learned Counsel for the accused has cited Daulat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1998 (1) Shim. L.C. 322) wherein the following was held :— "12..... In the present case nothing has come on the record to show that same was made homogeneous and representative before it was taken and sealed in three equal parts. The method of quartering was never followed in the present case. Therefore, failure on the part of the Food Inspector to obtain the proper sample, has rendered its subsequent analysis worthless and the petitioner cannot be held guilty." 9. In case State of Haryana v. Hukum Chand (supra) the case before the Punjab & Haryana High Court was concerning the sample of wheat flour which was found to contain dust. The observations in the judgment that necessity of thoroughly mixing the total quantity of material applies in a case wherein sample of milk is taken are simply illustrative and it cannot be said that the Court intended to lay down as to which article of food alone is required to be made homogeneous before taking sample thereof. Thus, it cannot be said that on the strength of that judgment (supra) it is only the milk which is required to be made homogeneous before taking the sample thereof. Even sample of curd cannot be taken without making the curd homogeneous before taking the sample for the same reasons as apply to milk. Thus, it cannot be said that on the strength of that judgment (supra) it is only the milk which is required to be made homogeneous before taking the sample thereof. Even sample of curd cannot be taken without making the curd homogeneous before taking the sample for the same reasons as apply to milk. Thus, it is evident that the Court by making the above observations did not mean that it is only the sample of milk which is required to be taken after stirring the milk to make it homogeneous and representative and it is not required in any other case. Thus, from the ratio of the said case it cannot be said that while taking sample of flour it is not required to be made homogeneous and representative in any case. In the said case not making the wheat flour homogeneous was immaterial because of the presence of dust as the shopkeeper could take appropriate steps to avoid settling of dust on the wheat flour whereas no such steps can be taken to completely save wheat flour from the affects of moisture. 10. In case Daulat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (supra), the sample taken was that of Sooji and it was found insect-infested. The sample was taken during rainy season when likelihood of Sooji being affected by moisture was greater than in any other season. Therefore, failure on the part of the Food Inspector to obtain the sample of Sooji after making the food stuff homogeneous and representative, was held to have rendered the subsequent analysis worthless. In the case in hand, marginally higher quantity of moisture was found in the wheat flour and there is no evidence on record to prove that the wheat flour was made homogeneous and representative before taking the sample. It is a mater of common knowledge that when flour is kept in a bag for sale in the shop, the moisture will mostly affect the upper layer of the contents of the bag, therefore, to ensure that the sample taken was representative, the Food Inspector was duty bound to mix at latest upper layer of the wheat flour to make it homogeneous before taking the sample. His having not done so, is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 11. His having not done so, is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 11. To prove that the sample was put by the Food Inspector in neat, dry and clean bottles, the prosecution has laid reliance on the statement of PW-1, P.L. Sharma who has stated that the purchased sample was put in three clean and dry bottles in equal proportion. It has been suggested to this witness in his cross-examination that the bottles in which the sample was put were not clean and dry and the suggestion has been denied by him. According to the prosecution, the sample was taken in the presence of PW-2 Paramjeet Singh. About the condition of the bottles in which the sample was put, this witness in his examination has not stated anything except that the sample of wheat flour was put by the Food Inspector in one/two glass bottles of white colour. Thus, this witness has neither supported the version that the sample was put in three bottles nor he has stated that the bottles in which the sample was put were neat, dry and clean. Thus, the so-called independent witness, namely, PW-2 Paramjeet Singh does not support the case of the prosecution regarding putting to the wheat flour sample by the Food Inspector in three neat, clean and dry bottles in equal proportion. 12. The question, therefore, arises whether the statement of PW-1 Food Inspector P.L. Sharma is sufficient to believe the prosecution version that the sample was put in three neat, clean and dry bottles in equal proportion? The learned first Appellate Court has declined to believe the bare statement of the Food Inspector in this behalf. The question, therefore, for determination is whether the sole statement of the Food Inspector in this regard has wrongly been disbelieved by the first Appellate Court, whereas such statement was sufficient to hold the factum of the wheat flour sample having been put into three neat, dry and clean bottles in equal proportion by the Food Inspector. 13. The question, therefore, for determination is whether the sole statement of the Food Inspector in this regard has wrongly been disbelieved by the first Appellate Court, whereas such statement was sufficient to hold the factum of the wheat flour sample having been put into three neat, dry and clean bottles in equal proportion by the Food Inspector. 13. The learned Assistant Advocate General, to support his submission that the testimony of the Food Inspector in this regard despite want of corroboration by the independent witness could not be discarded, has relied on State of U.P. v. Hanif (AIR 1992 SC 112 1), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows :— "4........It is not the law that the evidence of Food Inspector must necessarily need corroboration from independent witnesses. The evidence of the Food Inspector is not inherently suspected, nor be rejected on that ground. He discharges the public function in purchasing an article of food for analysis and if the article of food so purchased in the manner prescribed under the Act is found adulterated, he is required to take action as per law. He discharges public duty. His evidence is to be tested on its own merits and if found acceptable the Court would be entitled to accept and rely on to prove prosecution case. If in a given case where the factum of the very purchase is put in question and any personal allegations are made agaisnt the Food Inspector, perhaps it may be necessary for the prosecution to dispel the doubt and to examine the Panch witnesses seeking corroboration to the evidence of the Food Inspector....." 14. In the case supra, no one was examined to corroborate the statement of the Food Inspector. Since no inherent defect in the testimony of the Food Inspector was found, therefore, it was held that even uncorroborated statement of the Food Inspector, if found acceptable, the same can be relied upon to prove the prosecution case. In the case supra, no one was examined to corroborate the statement of the Food Inspector. Since no inherent defect in the testimony of the Food Inspector was found, therefore, it was held that even uncorroborated statement of the Food Inspector, if found acceptable, the same can be relied upon to prove the prosecution case. However, in the present case the prosecution has examined PW-2 Paramjeet Singh to corroborate the statement of the Food Inspector and it is the statement of this witness which creates doubt about the testimony of the Food Inspector, (PW-1) to the effect that the sample taken by him was put in three neat, clean and dry bottles, because the statement of PW-2 Paramjeet Singh in this regard is that the sample was put in one/two bottles. Thus, he is not prepared even to say that the sample was put in three bottles. About the condition of the bottles, he is silent and no attempt at the trial has been made to get the requisite clarification from the witness about the condition of the bottles and number, thereof by the prosecution. Thus, in view of the statement of PW-2 Paramjeet Singh, the statement of PW-1 Food Inspector P.L. Sharma is rendered suspicious and unreliable about the number and condition of the bottles. More so, when the accused has already suggested in the cross-examination of the Food Inspector that the bottles in which the sample was put, were not neat, dry and clean. In view of the above reasons, the conclusion arrived at by the learned first Appellate Court that the bare statement of the Food Inspector regarding the condition of the bottles could not be believed for want of corroboration, is sustainable. 15. The moisture found in excess in the sample flour is only 0.5% than the prescribed standard and in the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated here-in-above, this nominal excess moisture could be the result of not taking the representative sample of the wheat flour after making the wheat flour homogeneous. 16. For the reasons stated here-in-above, no infirmity in the impugned judgment is found, therefore, it does not call for interference. As a result, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.