Judgment :- The State, aggrieved over the judgment of acquittal made by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Srivilliputhur in C.C.No.294/94 in which the respondents/accused were charged and tried under Ss 7(i) & 16(i)(a) (i) r/w 2(ia) (a) & (m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. P.W.1 Subbiah, Food Inspector, Rajapalayam Municipality filed a complaint stating that on 27.9.1994 at about 8.15 A.M., he intercepted the third accused, who was carrying milk in a container on a cycle driven by him from South to North. P.W.1 introduced him that he was the Food Inspector and enquired the third accused as to the contents in the container. The third accused informed him that he was having 25 litres of milk; and that he was taking the same to the public distribution from Rajapalayam Cooperative Milk Society. He served a copy of Form 6 on him. He purchased 900 ml. of milk from the third accused by paying Rs.6.30 and got Ex.P2 receipt from him. The same was divided into three parts. After following the procedural formalities, the sample was sent for chemical analysis. While one part was sent for chemical analysis, the other parts of the samples were sent to the Local Authority under a mahazar. A report was received from the Analyst with the finding that the said milk was adulterated. After obtaining the orders for initiating prosecution under Ex.P10, he filed a complaint against the accused. 3. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined 2 witnesses and marked 15 exhibits. When the accused were asked about the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they denied the same as false. One Sathyamurthy was examined as D.W.1, and two exhibits were marked on the side of the defence. After consideration of the rival submissions and scrutiny of the available materials, the lower Court found the respondents/accused not guilty of the said charges and acquitted them. Aggrieved State has brought forth this appeal. 4. One Sathyamurthy was examined as D.W.1, and two exhibits were marked on the side of the defence. After consideration of the rival submissions and scrutiny of the available materials, the lower Court found the respondents/accused not guilty of the said charges and acquitted them. Aggrieved State has brought forth this appeal. 4. Arguing for the State, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the Food Inspector while taking the sample has taken same in accordance with law; that the authority has accorded sanction only after considering the report of the Public Analyst and the report of the Food Inspector, and hence, it cannot be stated that the consent given by the competent authority was not valid and the consent by the competent authority did not suffer from non-application of law; that the Central Food Laboratory Report supersedes the Public Analyst's Report, and hence, the lower Court should have found the accused guilty even on the basis of the report of the Central Food Laboratory; that in such circumstances, the prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and hence, the lower Court should have found the accused guilty. 5. Countering to the above contentions, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/accused would submit that the lower Court has acquitted the accused, since the sample was not properly taken; that the consent given by the competent authority was not valid, and there was difference and discrepancy in the test reports given by the Central Food Laboratory and the Public Analyst, and hence, on these three vital grounds, the lower Court has rejected the complainant's case, and therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. 6. The Court is of the considered view, after careful scrutiny of the available materials, that the appeal is devoid of substance. 7. The case of the complainant was that on 27.9.1994 at 8.15 A.M., the third accused who used to take the milk from the first accused Society and sell the same among the public was intercepted by P.W.1 Food Inspector, and after informing him, he purchased 900 ml of milk, divided them into parts and sent the sample to the Public Analyst. Accordingly, the sample was analysed by the Public Analyst, wherein the milk was found to be adulterated. In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the lower Court, P.W.1 has not taken the sample properly as required by law. Accordingly, the sample was analysed by the Public Analyst, wherein the milk was found to be adulterated. In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the lower Court, P.W.1 has not taken the sample properly as required by law. When A-3 was intercepted, he was found in possession of 25 litres of milk in a 40 litres container. From the evidence, it would be clear that P.W.1 did not make a thorough stir of the entire quantity, but he has shaken the container ups and down and has purchased 900 ml of milk, out of which the samples have been sent for test, and thus, it cannot be stated that samples were taken in accordance with law. Admittedly, there was a variance among the report received from the Central Food Laboratory and the report of the Public Analyst. The prosecution was not able to give proper account for the same. On those two counts, the prosecution case was rightly rejected by the lower Court. The Court does not find any reason to interfere in the judgment impugned. The finding of the Court below has got to be necessarily sustained. 8. In the result, this criminal appeal is dismissed.