Judgment ( 1. ) - This appeal is directed by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by Judicial Magistrate first Class, Lahar, District Bhind in Criminal case No. 28/91 dated 13. 3. 1995, by which the respondents have been acquitted against the charge under Sections 2 (l) (a), 14 (l) (a) and 17 (l) (a) read with Section 16 (l) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. ( 2. ) IN short the facts of the case are that on 7. 7. 1990 sample of honey was taken from the shop of Munnalal and it was divided into three parts and sent for chemical examination. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against the respondent No. l. The trial court has framed charge against the respondent and after conclusion of trial acquitted the respondent against the charges. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, this appeal has been preferred by the State. ( 3. ) THE State has taken ground that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence properly and has wrongly acquitted the respondents. ( 4. ) I have heard the counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record of the lower court. ( 5. ) THE trial court has held that in this case the incident took place on 7. 7. 1990 but on the date of incident M. S. Yadav (PW1)Food Inspector was not authorized to work as Food Inspector and there was no notification issued by the concerning authority. In para 7 and 8 of the judgment it is mentioned that M. S. Yadav (PW1) was appointed as food Inspector vide Gazette no-tification dated 23. 8. 1991. The relevant document is Ex. P6c, which clearly shows that on the date when the sample was taken by M. S. Yadav (PW1), he was not authorized to do so due to want of notification. The subsequent notification cannot validate the proceeding conducted by the Food Inspector and it is established that after notification the Food Inspector can inspect and collect the sample if it is found to be adulterated. In this case the action taken by the Food inspector was without jurisdiction. Secondly, he also admits that before taking sample notice under form No. 6 was not given to the respondents as stated in para no. 13 of the judgment. In this case the action taken by the Food inspector was without jurisdiction. Secondly, he also admits that before taking sample notice under form No. 6 was not given to the respondents as stated in para no. 13 of the judgment. Further, he has not complied with Section 10 (3) of the Food adulteration Act. Apart from this there are two reports, one was report of Public Analyst filed by the FSL, which is Ex. P14. But the sample was also got examined by central Food Laboratory and the report of the central Food Laboratory was not proved by the prosecution. When the sample was taken by the Food Laboratory, the report of the FSL becomes valueless. Further in para 17 of the judgment it is also observed that no valid sanction was taken by the prosecution. ( 6. ) THEREFORE, in view of the above discussion it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the respondents and the finding recorded by the trial court is just and proper and based on legal evidence. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerning court. Appeal dismissed.