Judgment SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 30-1-87 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in Cr. Case No. 65/86 by which he acquitted the accused-respondents for violation of Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. ( 2 ) THIS appeal arises in the following circumstances : i) On 14-12-85, P. W. 1 Dr. P. K. Purohit, Food Inspector checked the accused-respondent near the Railway Station and found that he was selling milk but he was not having valid licence for that and this search was made by P. W. 1 Dr. P. K. Purohit in presence of P. W. 2 Sher Khan. ii) He prepared Fard of search Ex. P/1 and after obtaining sanction etc. presented a complaint in the lower Court. ( 3 ) ( 4 ) ON 23-4-86, the trial Magistrate read over the contents of offence to the accused-respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. ( 5 ) DURING trial, as many as 2 witnesses have been produced on behalf of the prosecution and statement of accused-respondent was recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. and no evidence was led in defence. ( 6 ) AFTER conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused-respondent through his judgment and order dated 30-1-1967 inter alia holding that:i) Fard of checking Ex. P/1 is written with black ink though P. W. 1 Dr. P. K. Purohit has put his signature with blue ink, therefore, who prepared it, has not signed it and it creates a doubt. ii) The motbir witness to that Fard Ex. P/1 was only P. W. 2 Sher Khan and the same has been declared hostile and thus, statement of P. W. 1 Dr. P. K. Purohit, Food Inspector does not get corroboration. iii) The fact that accused-respondent was selling the milk in drum has not been mentioned in Ex. P/1 and the fact that to whom he was selling milk, it has not been mentioned in Ex. P. K. Purohit, Food Inspector does not get corroboration. iii) The fact that accused-respondent was selling the milk in drum has not been mentioned in Ex. P/1 and the fact that to whom he was selling milk, it has not been mentioned in Ex. P/1, therefore, in these circumtances, the learned trial Magistrate held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and thus, acquitted the accused-respondent. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED from the said judgment and order, the present State appeal has been filed. ( 8 ) IN this appeal, it has been argued by the learned P. P. that the reasoning given by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in his judgment dated 30-1-87 are erroneous one and case of prosecution stands proved by the statement of P. W. 1 Dr. P. K. Purohit only. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused-respondent submits that the judgment and order of the trial Magistrate are based on correct appreciation of evidence and the same do not call for interference by this Court. ( 10 ) I have heard both. ( 11 ) IN my considered opinion, the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is based on correct appreciation of evidence and the learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons for not holding the accused-respondent guilty and this Court does not want to interfere in the findings of the learned trial Magistrate. For the reasons mentioned above, the present State appeal is dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 30-1-87 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer. Appeal dismissed.