JUDGMENT 1. - Through this appeal under Section 378 Cr.PC. the State of Rajasthan has challenged the acquittal of Bhura recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara vide judgment dated 28.5.1982 in a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The brief facts are that on 12.9.79, Rameshwar Tyagi, Food Inspector had purchased 660 ml. of milk from the respondent for analysis. He sealed the sample in three dry bottles as per rules. One bottle of sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, who vide report Ex.P/5 opined that the sample was adulterated by reason of its containing about 25% of added water. After obtaining sanction, the Food Inspector prosecuted the respondent The prosecution examined Rameshwar Prasad Tyagi (P.W. 1), Dr. Murli Manohar Mathur (P.W. 2), Lal Mohammed (PW. 3), Vimla Mathur (P.W. 4) and Hira Lal (PW. 5). Accused In his statement denied accusation. He entered into the witnesses box as defence witness and examined Dilawar Singh. 3. The Magistrate after hearing the learned counsel for the parties held that the prosecution had not been able to prove that Rameshwar Prasad Tyagi was the Food Inspector appointed for the area at the relevant time. He further held that the accused was not having milk for sale. He also held that the Food Inspector had not complied with the provisions of Section 11(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as he had not obtained the signatures of the accused on the outer cover and the paper slip. Eventually, he acquitted the respondent, following the case law cited before him. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to show that the conclusion arrived by the trial court are manifestly erroneous. The es prosecution had not placed a copy of the appointment order of the Food Inspector for the area at the relevant time. It is on record that the Food inspector had not complied with the provisions of Section 11(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As the accused was taking milk from market for his master, it could not be found that the accused had stored the milk for sale. Dilawar Singh has been examined in the case. He deposes that as he had arranged a party, he had sent the accused to bring milk. The accused also states on oath this fact. As the accused was taking milk from market for his master, it could not be found that the accused had stored the milk for sale. Dilawar Singh has been examined in the case. He deposes that as he had arranged a party, he had sent the accused to bring milk. The accused also states on oath this fact. It is not in the statement of the Food inspector that he had seen the accused selling milk. 5. In view of the facts, which have appeared in the record, it cannot be said that the conclusions arrived by the trial court are manifestly erroneous and wholly untenable. 6. There being no merit in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******