JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Krishan Lal son of Sadhu Ram respondent herein was charged under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for allegedly keeping 20 kilograms of adulterated dal chana for public sale. He has earned acquittal vide impugned judgment of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra dated 15.9.1992. Hence this appeal by State of Haryana. 2. The allegations against the respondent is that on 9.1.1987, Moti Ram Sharma, Govt. Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. Jitender Kumar visited the shop of the respondent situated near Bus Stand Pipli and found in his possession 20 kilogram dal chana being kept in a gunny bag for public sale. After serving a notice, the Inspector purchased 750 grams dal chana from the respondent after giving him price of the same. Other statutory formalities were also done by the Inspector sealing the sample in the bottles for the purpose of sending them to the Public Analyst and keeping it in Local Health Authority as well. On the receipt of the report from the Public Analyst, the sample was found containing one living weevil, one piece of rodent excreta and one bird dropping. Thereafter complaint was filed against the respondent. 3. The respondent after putting his appearance before the concerned court, moved an application for sending the second part of the sample for re-analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory Mysore. It was consequently sent. The report revealed that the sample is substandard as there was presence of kesri dal in it and it was contrary to rules of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The respondent was consequently charged by the trial Court. 4. The learned trial court has acquitted the respondent mainly on the ground that few grains of kesri dal might have got mixed up at the time of transporting, loading or unloading chana dal and as such it cannot be said that the respondent who was keeping many food grains and other articles at his shop would mix kesri dal with the intention to earn more profits. It has been further observed by the trial court that even otherwise kesri dal could be mixed up in routine by a shopkeeper. It has been further observed by the trial court that even otherwise kesri dal could be mixed up in routine by a shopkeeper. It has further been observed by the learned trial court that the specific purpose for which the Food Inspector had visited the shop of the respondent was to take the sample of chana dal and he had not noticed any grain of kesri dal in it insomuch so that even the Public Analyst who examined the sample very carefully has not even observed any grain of kesri dal in it. This fact, according to the learned trial court was enough to show that the respondent was not at all selling any adulterated item for the purpose of public sale. Taking the abovesaid facts collectively, the learned trial court has based the acquittal. 5. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. However, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent. I have also gone through the file of the trial court minutely. 6. The learned State counsel has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that even according to the report of the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore the sample contain some foreign material in the shape of kesri dal and as such it cannot be said that it was not adulterated. The judgment of acquittal is liable to be disturbed, the learned State Counsel so contends. 7. I do not agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the State. I have minutely scanned the evidence including both the reports. Admittedly, the report of the Central Food Laboratory has to supersede the report of Public Analyst which talks about the presence of kesri dal. It is contrary to rule 44-A(e) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Admittedly, the respondent was running karyana shop and was selling many articles including different dals. Generally the petty shopkeepers keep one measure (in local parlance it is known as Bamboo) for taking different dal from different gunny bags. There is every possibility that some grains of one particular dal might have got mixed in the other gunny bag by the shopkeeper in routine. It appears that in the present case as well, the presence of kesri dal in the chana dal shows that some grains had got mixed in the chana dal just in a casual manner. There is every possibility that some grains of one particular dal might have got mixed in the other gunny bag by the shopkeeper in routine. It appears that in the present case as well, the presence of kesri dal in the chana dal shows that some grains had got mixed in the chana dal just in a casual manner. It is worth mentioning here that initially the Public Analyst had not noticed the presence of kesri dal at the time of drawing the sample. It reflects that the presence of certain grains of kesri dal was just negligible and it came to the notice of Central Food Laboratory only when they checked the sample more minutely. Admittedly, the presence of kesri dal also skipped the notice of Public Analyst. The learned trial Court has considered all these factors in its judgment and has rightly acquitted the respondents by giving him benefits of doubt. The judgment of acquittal, thus, is not liable to be disturbed on any count. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Appeal dismissed.