Judgment ( 1. ) AGAINST the judgment of acquittal, the present appeal has been filed by the State/appellant against the order of Shri. A. K. Samadhiya, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena, dated 09. 03. 1999 in Criminal Case No. 107/95 whereby respondent has been acquitted against the charge under section 7 (1) read with section 16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. ( 2. ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 29. 04. 94 food inspector Shri r. C. Sharma [pw-1] inspected the shop belonging to the respondent and gave a notice Ex. P-1 for obtaining the sample of Khoya. He purchased 600 gm. Khoya worth Rs. 24/- and gave a receipt to the respondent. The sample was divided in three parts and kept in clean and dry cover and affixed label on it. The seized article was sent to the Local Health Authority, Morena and also one sample was sent alongwith memorandum to Public Analyst. The report of Public Analyst Ex. P-10 which indicates that the Khoya which is collected from the respondent is adulterated. After obtaining the permission for prosecution against the respondent, the charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and after trial, the respondent was acquitted by the Trial Court. ( 3. ) AGAINST the order of acquittal, the appeal preferred by the state challenging the findings of the Trial Court on the following grounds :- (1) The order of the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is against the law. (2) The Trial Court has wrongly held that the provision of section 7 (1), 16 (1) (i), section 13 (2) and Rule 9a was not complied with. (3) The Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution properly. ( 4. ) FIRST, I would discuss the prosecution evidence adduced in the Trial court and then discuss the legal objections raised by the appellant. Food inspector R. C. Sharma [pw-1] deposed that he is a trained sanitary inspector and under the notification also assigned the function of Food Inspector. On 29. 04. 94, he was posted at Morena and he has jurisdiction to work throughout the Morena district. He inspected the shop of the respondent and after giving notice Ex. P-1 to the respondent taken the sample of Khoya. He purchased 600 gm Khoya and paid Rs. 24 as a purchase price. The receipt is Ex. P-2. On 29. 04. 94, he was posted at Morena and he has jurisdiction to work throughout the Morena district. He inspected the shop of the respondent and after giving notice Ex. P-1 to the respondent taken the sample of Khoya. He purchased 600 gm Khoya and paid Rs. 24 as a purchase price. The receipt is Ex. P-2. The seized sample was divided in three parts and prepared the packets of Khoya in a polythene in which twenty drops of Formelene were poured on each packet. After that he affixed the label P-3 on each packet. The sample was sealed in a bag and sent to the Local Health authority, Morena. Panchanama is Ex. P-4. Out of samples, one bag alongwith memorandum was sent to the public analyst for examination of the article. The memorandum is Ex. P-5. The receipt of sample and impression seal received from the public analyst is Ex. P/7 and P/8 and the report is Ex. P-10. The permission taken from the prosecution by the letter Ex. P-11. ( 5. ) R. C. Sharma [pw-1], in cross-examination, para 4, it is admitted that he has not filed the notification about his appointment but number was mentioned in the charge-sheet. He has not filed any copy of the same in the court. The sample reached Bhopal on 02. 05. 94 and the report received on 04. 07. 94. Permission for prosecution was obtained on 22. 12. 94. ( 6. ) THE prosecution has also examined other witnesses Giriraj Kishore dandotiya [pw-2], who is the clerk in the office of the Deputy Director, food Department. According to the witness, he has sent notice under section 13 (2) alongwith the report of the public analyst to the respondent. The receipt is Ex. P-13. ( 7. ) THE trial court held that in the statement of Shri, R. C. Sharma [pw-1], it is nowhere mentioned that at the time of taking sample of Khoya, it was stirred mixed and also not mentioned either in the memorandum or in the statement of witnesses, therefore, the prosecution had not complied with the mandatory provisions under section 7 (1), 16 (1) and 7 (3) (2) read with Rule 9a. The Trial Court has also observed that as per the evidence of the prosecution, it is not established that the sample was divided in three equal quantities because it was not weighed at the time when sample was divided in three parts. The Trial Court found that it is not proved beyond doubt that the seized. Khoya was adulterated, therefore, acquitted the respondent. ( 8. ) IT is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Trial Court was in error by holding that the mandatory provision under section 7 (1), 16 (1) (i) and section 13 (2) and Rule 9a was not complied with because this provision is not applicable in case of Khoya. It is also submitted that regarding quantity of food article, the rule has been amended and as per Rule 22 (b)unless Central Food Laboratory is reported adversely about the quantity then the report shall be accepted. The rule is mandatory one. It is also submitted on the request of the respondent that the sample was sent to the central Food Laboratory and the article was found adulterated. ( 9. ) IN this regard, from the side of the respondent, it is submitted that before taking sample of Khoya there is no evidence that it was mixed. In this regard, they relied on Ramchandra vs. State of M. P. 2003 (2) FAC 42. ( 10. ) FROM the side of the respondent, it is argued that from the evidence of prosecution, there is no evidence that packet in which sample has taken was cleaned and also it is not proved that how much sample exactly was taken and how it was divided in three parts. In this regard, respondents relied on Gurumukh Das vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2000 (2) FAC 65, Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2003 (2) FAC 318 : 2003 (2) MPWN 129 , Bansilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2003 (2)FAC 193 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bhartu Bajla 1997 (2) FAC 58 MP. ( 11. ) FROM the side of the appellants, no authorities were cited to meet the objections raised by the respondents. Therefore, the objections raised on behalf of the respondents appears to be acceptable on the reasons assigned above. ( 12. ( 11. ) FROM the side of the appellants, no authorities were cited to meet the objections raised by the respondents. Therefore, the objections raised on behalf of the respondents appears to be acceptable on the reasons assigned above. ( 12. ) FROM the side of the respondents, it is seriously contended that the notification regarding appointment of Food Inspector was not proved by the prosecution as per Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration act, 1954. In the statement R. C. Sharma [pw-1] orally deposed that as per the notification he was appointed as Food Inspector but no notification has been filed in the record. He admitted this fact in para 4 of his cross-examination. Respondents relied on this behalf various citations in which it is held that it is essential that the prosecution must prove the notification for appointment of Food Inspector for such local area from where the sample was taken by the Food Inspector. In this behalf, the respondents relied on Sitaram Mittal vs. Roda S/o Balaram 2000 (2) FAC 88 M. P. , sadhram vs. State of M. P. 1994 (2) FAC 1 : 1995 FAJ 186 MP. , and udailal vs. State of M. P. 1992 Cr. L. R. (M. P.) 465. Therefore, regarding appointment of Food Inspector R. C. Sharma for work on that local area in which he was assigned to work as Food Inspector. ( 13. ) APART from the above objection, it is also submitted that the mandatory provision of rule 17 and 18 has also not been complied with by the prosecution and in this behalf respondents relied on Sitaram Mittal vs. Roda S/o Balaram 2000 (2) FAC 88 M. P. and State of Maharashtra vs. Rajkaran reported in 1986 (2) FAC 156 in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1978. R. C. Sharma [pw-1] only stated that the memorandum and impression of seal was sent to the public analyst be registered A. D. post but there is not acknowledgment from the public analyst was filed in the case. ( 14. ) FROM the side of the respondents, some citations also relied on delay in prosecution which are : Ram Singh vs. State of M. P. 2005 (2)FAC 245 : 2005 (3) MPLJ 458 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Shri krishna Gopal Dubey and others 2005 (1) FAC 7. ( 14. ) FROM the side of the respondents, some citations also relied on delay in prosecution which are : Ram Singh vs. State of M. P. 2005 (2)FAC 245 : 2005 (3) MPLJ 458 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Shri krishna Gopal Dubey and others 2005 (1) FAC 7. But looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, these citations were not being held as the report of the public analyst or Central Food Laboratory did not indicate that sample was deteriorated or not fit for test for analysis. ( 15. ) THE prosecution has examined only two witnesses i. e. R. C. Sharma [pw-1] and Giriraj Kishore Dandotiya [pw-2] but from the evidence on record, the objection raised by the respondent is not met out by the prosecution evidence by orally as well as by the documentary evidence. ( 16. ) FROM the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it appears that at the time of taking sample, it is not weighed by the Food Inspector and the sample was divided in three parts approximately as stated by the Food inspector R. C. Sharma [pw-1]. In the Panchnama also it is not mentioned that when sample was taken in the polythene packets, the packets were clean and dry. The same facts admitted by the Food Inspector in his cross-examination. There is no evidence on the of the prosecution that before taking the sample of Khoya, it was stirred and made homogeneous. ( 17. ) APART from the above, the sanction also not proved as per provision of Section 67 of the Evidence Act. In this behalf respondents relied on bholaram vs. State of M. P. reported in 2005 (1) FAC 226 and ramachandra vs. State of M. P. reported in 2003 (2) FAC 42. I have also mentioned earlier that notification has also not proved according to the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. ( 18. ) ON the basis of the aforesaid reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that acquittal of the appellant/accused recorded by the Trial Court is based on evidence on record and needs no interference. Therefore, the appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal is disallowed. The findings of the Lower Courts are maintained. Bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled and the appeal is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.