Judgment : Per K. N. BASHA, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the State through the Food Inspector, Erode Municipality challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Erode, in S.T.C. No.2799 dated 27.03.1998, acquitting the accused for the offences under Sections 7 (1) and 16 (1) (a) (i) read with 2(1a) (a) and (m) the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The allegation against the accused is that he was running a business under the name and style of “Shree Bannari Amman Milk Depot” at Erode. It is alleged that on 27.11.1996 at 1.40 a.m., P.W.1, who is the Health and Food Inspector, along with P.W.3, who is the Health Supervisor, inspected the business premises of the accused. It is claimed by P.W.1 that he was authorized by G.O. Ms. No.571 dated 15.4.1991 to take food samples. Ex.P.2 is the said G.O. Therefore P.W.1 along with P.W.3 went to the business premises of the accused on 27.11.1996 at 11.40 a.m. and at that time the accused, who is the proprietor of the said business concern, was present and found in possession of 10 litres of milk in a 15 litre plastic cane. P.W.1 suspected that the milk may be adulterated and therefore he decided to take samples from the shop of the accused. P.W.1 called P.W.2 who was running a provision stores adjacent to the Milk Depot to be present at the time of taking samples. Thereafter P.W.1 introduces himself to the accused and prepared Form VI copies, Ex.P.3, in duplicate and obtained signature of the accused and the witness P.W.2. Thereafter P.W.1, after following the mandatory requirements contemplated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, had taken sample of Buffalo milk of 750 milli litres and stirred the milk. He purchased the same by paying an amount of Rs.8.25. The Cash Receipt is Ex.P.4. Thereafter, P.W.1 had taken three bottles and filled those bottles with milk carefully and after putting Formalin drops into the milk, he once again stirred the milk and sealed the bottles. Thereafter, P.W.1 affixed the specimen seals containing the particulars of each and every bottle and pasted the same and wrapped all the bottles with a paper and pasted the same. Thereafter, P.W.1 affixed the specimen seals containing the particulars of each and every bottle and pasted the same and wrapped all the bottles with a paper and pasted the same. After following other mandatory requirements, P.W.1 prepared From VII and took five copies and sent the sample bottle with Form VII through the Southern Roadways Parcel Services, Madurai to the Analyst, Guindy, Chennai, for analysis. Ex.P.5 is the coopy of Form VII, Ex.P.7 is the parcel receipt. P.W.1 also sent intimation, Ex.P.6, with one portion of the sample milk to the local Health Authority, and obtained acknowledgment from them.Ex.P.8 is the acknowledgment. On 28.11.1996, he sent a copy of Form VII by Registered Post along with the acknowledgment card to the Analyst, Guindy, Chennai. Ex.P.9 is the acknowledgment card. The Analyst after examining the sample, sent Analysis Report, Ex.P.10, dated 21.12.1996 bearing No.2615/96-97.P.W.1 also sent a copy of the Analysts Report, Ex.P.10 to the local Health Authority. It is stated in Ex.P.10 Analysis Report that the said food falls below the prescribed standard in respect of the Milk Solids-Not-Fat content. Hence the sample is adulterated as per Section 2 (1a)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Thereafter, P.W.1 sent a requisition letter to the Joint Director, Public Health for according sanction to prosecute the accused. Ex. P.11 is the letter sent by P.W.1 after obtaining sanction, Ex.P 12, dated 29.1.1997, P.W.1 filed the case against the accused on 4.3.1997 for offences under Sections 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with 2(1a) (a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. P.W.1 also sent a notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to the accused on 10.3.1997 by registered post with acknowledgement card. The postal acknowledgement is Ex.P.13. The copy of Section 13(2) notice is marked as Ex.P.14. The accused has not preferred any appeal for sending the sample for reanalysis. 3. P.W.2, who was examined to speak about the sale of milk and taking of the sample and other procedures adopted by P.W.1 turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. P.W.3 is yet another official viz., Health Supervisor, who is said have accompanied P.W.1 at the time of inspection of the shop of the accused and taking samples. 4. 3. P.W.2, who was examined to speak about the sale of milk and taking of the sample and other procedures adopted by P.W.1 turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. P.W.3 is yet another official viz., Health Supervisor, who is said have accompanied P.W.1 at the time of inspection of the shop of the accused and taking samples. 4. The prosecution has chosen to examine only three witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 to 3 and filed exs.p.1 to 16 to prove its case. 5. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C in respect of the incriminating material made available against him, he denied his complicity and stated that a false case has been foisted against him. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, on consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Magistrate has acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that P.W.1, at the time of taking sample, has not stirred the milk which is a mandatory requirement under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and therefore, the entire proceedings is vitiated. Apart from this ground, the learned trial Magistrate has not given any other ground for acquitting the accused. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), M.K.Subramanian, contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by adducting clear, cogent and consistent evidence. The learned Government Advocate also pointed out that the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that there is no evidence to the effect that P.W.1, Food and Health Inspector, at the time of taking samples of milk had stirred the milk effectively and therefore there is contravention of mandatory requirements under the Prevention Food Adulteration Act. The perusal of the entire materials available on record clearly shows that P.W.1 stated that at the time of taking samples of milk he had effectively stirred it and therefore, as rightly put forward by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), the finding of the learned Magistrate is wrong and against the materials available on record. 8. The perusal of the entire materials available on record clearly shows that P.W.1 stated that at the time of taking samples of milk he had effectively stirred it and therefore, as rightly put forward by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), the finding of the learned Magistrate is wrong and against the materials available on record. 8. On my perusal of the entire materials available on record, it is seen that except the evidence of the officials P.Ws.1 and 3 viz., Health and Food Inspector and Health Supervisor, there is absolutely no corroboration to speak about the inspection, seizure as well as following the procedures contemplated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. viz., stirring the milk, taking sample in three different bottles/containers and affixing the specimen seal and other requirement contemplated under the Act. P.W.1 had taken the signature of P.W.2 who is the neighbouring shop owner to speak about the seizure and taking samples in the bottles and following other mandatory procedures. But unfortunately, P.W.2 had turned hostile and therefore the prosecution is left with no other witness to corroborate the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3. 9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) has fairly brought to my notice, the following decision of this Court. This Court has held in State by the Food Inspector, Rajapalayam Municipality rep. by Public Prosecutor v. Ahemed Meeran and Another reported in 1999-1-L.W. (Crl.) 350 as follows: “The requirement of obtaining attestation by independent witness is emphasized under sub-section (7) of Section 10 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It is mandatory and therefore in the absence of corroboration by such witnesses the prosecution has to fail. In the present case, the signature of only one witness has been obtained and he having turned hostile the prosecution has to fail” The above said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case and therefore the noncompliance of the requirement of sub-section 7 of Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vitiates the entire proceedings. 10. For the above said reasons, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.