ORDER S.S. Grewal, J. - The State of Punjab has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 7.5.1998 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara in Complaint No. 34-II of 1.8.1996 under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act") whereby the accused Subhash Chander was acquitted of the charge. 2. Briefly, the prosecution story is that a complaint under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was filed by the Food Inspector Dr. Darshan Pal Singh Bawa on the allegations that he inspected the premises of Subhash Chander on 29.5.96 at about 12.00 p.m. and found him having in his possession about 25 kgs of Sepratta milk for sale contained in drums and demanded a sample of sepratta milk giving him in writing on form VI prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, after making solution homogeneous 750 mls of separatta milk was purchased for analysis from Sh. Subhash Chander for Rs. 3/- and receipt of the payment was obtained then he divided the food articles so purchased into three equal parts, put into three dry and clear bottles. Two drops of formalin per 25 ml were added as preservative in each bottle. The bottles were labelled, stopped and wrapped in a strong thick paper. A paper slip having code number 67145/PKM 181/96 duly signed by local Health Authority Kaputhala was pasted with gum around the sample and then were secured by means of strong twine and with five seals at the spot. The signature of Sh. Subhash Chander was taken partly on the slip and partly on wrapper. One sealed sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh along with form VII bearing seal impression through Sh. Nikka Ram peon class IV of the local Health Authority, Kaputhala and a memorandum in form VII bearing seals impression was also sent through Sh. Nikka Ram in sealed cover separately two sealed samples along with one copy of memorandum were deposited with the local Health Authority Kapurthala. After receiving the report of the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh the present case was filed. 3. After the challan was presented, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined PW-1 Dr. Darshan Pal Singh Bawa, PW-2 Bakhshish Singh, Food Clerk, PW-3 Nikka Ram and after tendering certain documents closed its evidence. 4. After receiving the report of the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh the present case was filed. 3. After the challan was presented, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined PW-1 Dr. Darshan Pal Singh Bawa, PW-2 Bakhshish Singh, Food Clerk, PW-3 Nikka Ram and after tendering certain documents closed its evidence. 4. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the accused denied the prosecution allegations in toto and re-affirmed his innocence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has argued that PW-1 Food Inspector Dr. Darshan Pal Singh Bawa has clearly stated that milk was shaken up in both ways i.e. clock-wise and anti-clockwise before the sample was taken. So the findings of the trial Court that milk was not shaken up and properly mixed up before taking the sample are wrong and should be set-aside. The accused has been acquitted only on this point. So, this appeal should be accepted and he should be convicted and sentenced for the above offence. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that in the complaint, this fact has not been mentioned. In the oral statement, the witness has filled up the lacunas. Such evidence should not be believed. 8. The fact of taking sample is specifically mentioned in the complainant but it is not mentioned that the milk was shaken up in clock-wise and anti- clockwise, before the sample was taken or the milk was properly mixed and made homogeneous. It is clear that PW-1 tried to fill the lacunas and such evidence casts doubt on the prosecution. I find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.