JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J. - State of Haryana has challenged the acquittal of Ganga Ram by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh who vide judgment dated April 23, 1993 found Ganga Ram innocent of contravention of provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the Act). 2. Megh Nath Food Inspector inspected Ganga Rams premises situate at village Nangal Sirohi on July 6, 1988 at 4.30 P.M. and found him to be in possession of 2 kgs of "Dal Mung Dhuli" for sale. The Inspector purchased 600 grams of the dal, divided it into three equal parts and put each part into three bottles which were labelled, stopped and wrapped in thick paper. One sealed bottle was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst while the other two bottled were deposited with the local health authorities. On analysis it was discovered that the sample of dal contained prohibited Metanil yellow coal-tar dye. Consequently, a complaint was filed against the respondent. 3. The learned trial Court recorded evidence and concluded that the prosecution had not successfully explained why no independent witnesses had been joined. The learned trial court also held that the opinion of the Public Analyst was based only on Paper Chromatography test. This was not sufficient to return a finding against the respondent that the sample of dal contained prohibited colouring agent. 4. The learned counsel for the State has forcefully argued that the basis for acquittal were not valid as it was settled law that an expert is not required to give reasons for his conclusion and the trial court had wrongly criticised the report of the expert to return the verdict of acquittal. Furthermore, it was argued that the court had failed to appreciate that a note had been given in the complaint to the effect that 3-4 persons were asked to become witnesses but none was willing. 5. In reply the learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Sham Sunder v. The State of Haryana, 1997(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 505 and Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 775 in support of the contention that the Paper Chromatography test was not sufficient to conclude that unpermitted coal-tar dye had been used. Learned counsel had also placed reliance on State of Punjab v. Raman Kumar, 1997(4) RCR 772 (Full Bench) in support of the proposition that it was mandatory to join independent witnesses, therefore, the Food Inspector was required to show by proper documentary evidence that it was practically impossible to secure the presence of independent witnesses. The provisions of Section 10 of the Act which required joining of independent witnesses were mandatory and violation of this provisions would entitle the accused of an acquittal. 6. Rule 28 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules provides list of synthetic food colours which may be used and for colour yellow a synthetic food colour only Tartrazine or sunset yellow FCF are permitted. Under Rule 29 a list is provided of articles of food in which permitted synthetic food colours can be used. Furthermore, Rule 30 gives the maximum limit of permitted synthetic food colours and Rule 31 states that colours specified in Rule 28 when used in the preparation of any article of food shall be pure and free from any harmful impurities. 7. In Kartar Singhs case (supra) and Sham Sunders case (supra) the adulteration was in respect of barfi and gajar pak. Both these articles of food can be coloured with permitted synthetic food colours but dal is not an article of food which can be so coloured as it is not an article of food mentioned in Rule 29. Be that as it may the sample of dal did contain prohibited Metanil yellow coal-tar dye as per the report of the Public Analyst Ex. P.G. In column 6 of the report there were five tests carried out. Wool double dyeing test was positive, Acid dye was present, Basic dye was absent, Paper Chromatography test showed that added prohibited Metanil yellow coal-tar dye was present and test for Metanil Yellow was positive. Therefore, it is not as if only paper chromatography test had been made the basis of giving the finding regarding the colouring agent used. The Public Analyst carried out four other tests to support his finding. 8. In the above cases referred to by the counsel for the respondent reference had only been made to paper chormatograph test and it was held that report of the Public Analyst should not be blindly followed. 9. Scientific tests are conducted by trained technicians. The Public Analyst carried out four other tests to support his finding. 8. In the above cases referred to by the counsel for the respondent reference had only been made to paper chormatograph test and it was held that report of the Public Analyst should not be blindly followed. 9. Scientific tests are conducted by trained technicians. If an accused person wishes to challenge the procedure and methods adopted by the Public Analyst in conducting a particular test then the accused should request the court to summon the Public Analyst as a witness for cross-examination but where this course is not adopted, it would be extremely unfair to the prosecution if the court debunks the test report. Technical offences are technical in nature and only trained experts can analyse the food article and give their scientific opinion. Such opinion should be respected unless it is procedurally defective or the process by which it was reached was on the face to is scientifically unfeasible and unreliable. It may be noted that many common materials around us are made of mixtures of compounds. Examples are petrol, ink, cosmetic, dyes and pigments. It is often very difficult to separate these mixtures, especially if the components are chemically very similar. One way to do this takes advantage of the slight difference in the components solubilities, which are due to slight differences in their chemical structure. This separation method is called thin layer, or paper chromatography. 10. Paper chromatography can separate very small quantities of substances from each other. It is also possible with reasonable certainty to determine the identity of one or more separated substances if one knows ahead of time that certain known substances may be present in the mixture that is being separated. 11. However, the State cannot escape criticism that independent persons were not joined when the raid was conduced and sample taken. It is true that in the complaint the Inspector has stated that 3-4 persons of public were asked to join as witnesses but none was willing. 11. However, the State cannot escape criticism that independent persons were not joined when the raid was conduced and sample taken. It is true that in the complaint the Inspector has stated that 3-4 persons of public were asked to join as witnesses but none was willing. This seems to be an extremely half-hearted attempt to explain why independent witnesses were not joined particularly when Section 10(7) of the Act specifically provides that where the Food Inspector takes action under the various provisions of Section 10, he shall call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures. The complaint in this case is in cyclostyled form. There is a recital therein that sample was taken in the presence of the witnesses whose names and addresses are given below. At the foot of the complaint space is provided for entering the names of witness. The inspector took no steps to call witnesses, therefore, the provisions of Section 10 of the Act had been clearly violated. Consequently, Full Bench of this Court reported as State of Punjab v. Raman Kumar (supra) would apply to the facts of the present case. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.