K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 9-6-1999, in C. CNo. 54/1997 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, srungavarapukota. ( 2 ) THE Food Inspector, Vizianagaram, visited the 2nd respondent-Mill on 8-10-1996 and found ten tins of groundnut oil kept for sale for human consumption. On suspicion that it was adulterated, he sought to purchase it as a sample. 1st respondent-A-1 denied to sell it to the Food Inspector. Then the Food inspector tried to seize the entire stock of 10 tins. A-l forcibly resisted the attempt of the food Inspector and A-3, the son-in-law of a-l necked out the Food Inspector from the mill. The Food Inspector sent a detailed report to the Director, Institute of Preventive medicine, Hyderabad, who accorded permission to lodge a complaint against A-1 to A-3-respondents 1 to 3 herein respectively. Accordingly the Food Inspector lodged a private complaint before the learned Judicial i Class Magistrate, Srungavarapukota, which was registered as C. C. No. 54/1997 for an offence under Section 16 (1) (c) and (d) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On behalf of the complainant, four witnesses were examined and seven documents were marked. On consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, by its judgment, dated 9-6-1999, it acquitted the accused persons, challenging the legality and correctness of which the Food Inspector filed the present appeal. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the lower Court did not consider the aspect of the A-1 and A-3 preventing and necking out the Food Inspector who was discharging his official duties, but considered irrelevant points such as non-compliance with mandatory provision under Sec. 10 (7) of the Act, lacuna in the sanction order and delay in submitting report to the Director, instituteofpreventivemedicine,hyderabad, etc, and therefore the impugned judgment should be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the accused contended that the Food Inspector never visited the mill but foisted the case on false grounds, and that since the lower Court after considering all the necessary points in the case acquitted the accused, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the accused contended that the Food Inspector never visited the mill but foisted the case on false grounds, and that since the lower Court after considering all the necessary points in the case acquitted the accused, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. ( 4 ) THE accusation against the accused was that A-1 prevented the Food Inspector from seizing the stock and A-3 necked him out from the mill while the Food Inspector was discharging his powers and duties under the act. While such prevention and attack is per se an offence under Section 16 of the Act, the trial Court formulated the following points for consideration - (i) there are many inconsistencies in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 with regard to the inspection of the mill, (ii) non-compliance of mandatory provision under Section 10 (7) of the Act, (Hi) lacuna in the sanction order, and (iv) delay of eight days in submitting detailed report to the Director of Preventive Medicine, hyderabad, by the Food Inspector. ( 5 ) THE inconsistencies in the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 3 as found by the trial Court are that while the mediators report stated that a-l pulled the oil tins from the Food Inspector and A-3 necked out the Food Inspector, p. Ws. 1 and 3 stated that A-1 pushed them outside the mill. This cannot be inconsistency in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3. It may be a variation with the mediators report. The other inconsistency according to trial Court is that p. W. 1 stated that he had requested A-1 to sell 375 gms of groundnut oil whereas p. W. 3 stated that P. W. 1 requested A-1 to sell 350 gms. These variations created a doubt in the mind of the trial Court whether the Food inspector had really visited the mill at all. The trial Court attached much importance to such variations in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 and committed a serious infirmity. The appreciation of evidence is not in accordance with law. These variations created a doubt in the mind of the trial Court whether the Food inspector had really visited the mill at all. The trial Court attached much importance to such variations in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 and committed a serious infirmity. The appreciation of evidence is not in accordance with law. ( 6 ) AS regards the second point framed by the trial Court, the question of violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 10 (7) of the Act does not arise in this case, because that provision would come into play when a sample has been lifted, whereas in the present case the Food Inspector was not allegedly allowed to lift the sample. However, the trial court answered points (iii) and (iv) in favour of the Prosecution. ( 7 ) IN view of what has been stated supra, this is a fit case to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration of the matter as appreciation of evidence by it is not in accordance with law. ( 8 ) IN the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the case afresh keeping in view the relevant provisions of the Act and the observations made by this court above, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.