Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena in Criminal case No. 3118/94, dated 6. 8. 99 by which the respondent was acquitted against the charge under Section 7 (1), read with Section 16 (1) (a) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. ( 2. ) IN brief, the story of the prosecution is that the allegation against the respondent that he was selling adulterated khowa (milk product ). On 28. 4. 94, the Food Inspector N. R. Jatav (P. W. 1) had taken sample of khowa from the appellant after giving notice of Form No. 6, purchased 600 gram khowa by giving an amount of Rs. 24/ -. The sample was divided into three parts and kept in a plastic container and sealed. One packet was sent to Public analyst. The sample was found adulterated as per the report received from public Analyst. Charge-sheet was filed before the court and the trial court framed the charge against him and after completion of trial, on the basis of evidence on record, acquitted the respondent on the ground that while taking the sample khowa was not homogeneous which is a representative sample. It is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the food article khowa was adulterated. Therefore, the respondent was acquitted by the trial Court. ( 3. ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that kowa is a solid substance which do not require to make it homogeneous because it was prepared from the milk substance and in the process it mixed up. Therefore, there is no need to make it homogeneous. But counsel for the state failed to explain and stated that in a solid substance, it is not necessary that sample was made a representative sample. ( 4. ) COUNSEL for the respondent submits that there are various citations of the court that before taking sample of khowa, it should be made homogeneous but it must be a representative sample otherwise it would be fatal to the prosecution. In this regard, he relied on State of M. P. Vs. Bhartu Bajla [1997 (2) FAC 56 in Criminal Appeal No. 282/2000] in which it is held that before taking sample, it must be made homogeneous. ( 5. In this regard, he relied on State of M. P. Vs. Bhartu Bajla [1997 (2) FAC 56 in Criminal Appeal No. 282/2000] in which it is held that before taking sample, it must be made homogeneous. ( 5. ) THE second contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the sample was taken approximately. There is no conclusive evidence about the weight of food article khowa which was taken as a sample. The trial court has discussed all aspects in para-10 of its judgment and observed that the sample was not duly taken and on both the counts, the trial court has acquitted the respondent. ( 6. ) AFTER having heard the counsel for the parties and evidence on record, it appears that the finding as recorded by the learned trial court is based on cogent evidence and there is no scope for any interference in the judgment of acquittal. Therefore, the appeal against judgment of acquittal is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.