JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—This revision has been preferred by the accused revisionist Saleem, who was tried by Special Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offences) in complaint case No. 1854 of 1982, State v. Saleem, for offence under Section 7/16 P.F.A. Act, P.S. Gangoh, District Saharanpur and was convicted and sentenced to six months RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the learned trial Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 16.11.1984. Convicted revisionist accused abortively challenged his aforesaid conviction and sentence before lower appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 420 of 1984, Saleem v. State of U.P., as 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur vide impugned judgment and order dated 8.4.1987 dismissed his appeal confirming conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Magistrate. This criminal revision emanates from the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence. 2. Stated concisely in an abridged form while eschewing unnecessarily facts, charge against the accused is that on 18.9.1981 at 9.30 a.m., he was found selling buffalo milk at Titorah bus stand, P.S. Gangoh without having any license for selling milk. The milks 20 liters were in two cans hanged on a cycle. Food Inspector T.S. Lingwal P.W.1, after introducing himself and informing the revisionist of his intention to purchase the sample of buffalo milk for analysis and after giving notice in Form-VI purchased 660 ml. of buffalo milk after paying it’s price Rs. 1.95 paise. Inspection report, notice in Form VI, and purchase receipt were prepared simultaneously, which are proved as Exts. Ka 1, 2 and 3 and revisionist and witnesses signed/put thumb impressions on the said documents. The purchased milk was churned and then was divided into three parts and was filled in three separate dry, neat and clean bottles and 18 drops of 40% formalin as preservative were added into each of the three bottles and all the three of it were sealed with thumb impression of the revisionist and thereafter putting them in an envelop seal impressions and code slips were pasted on each one of them accused revisionist was made to sign on it. After preparing memorandum in Form VII Ext. Ka-4, for analysis, one of the samples was dispatched to Public Analyst,Lucknow for testing. Memorandum was sent separately. Rest of the two samples alongwith memorandums were deposited in CMO’S office. Since the dispatched sample bottle to PA, Lucknow got damaged in transit, therefore second sample was dispatched for testing to PA. After preparing memorandum in Form VII Ext. Ka-4, for analysis, one of the samples was dispatched to Public Analyst,Lucknow for testing. Memorandum was sent separately. Rest of the two samples alongwith memorandums were deposited in CMO’S office. Since the dispatched sample bottle to PA, Lucknow got damaged in transit, therefore second sample was dispatched for testing to PA. Public Analyst Report No. 2517 dated 19.2.1982, ext. Ka-6, disclosed shortage of 13% of fat and 17% non fatty solid in the sample and hence the same was found adulterated as not conforming to the prescribed standard. 3. In pursuance of the Government Notification dated 6001-722/55 dated 18.9.1976, which was published in Government gazette dated 13.11.1976, sanction for prosecution of the accused revisionist under Section 20 of PFA Act was applied by the Food Inspector on 4.5.82, vide Ext. Ka-7 before CMO Saharanpur, which was accorded on 15.5.82 vide Ext. Ka-8. Food Inspector thereafter filed complaint under Section 7(1)(ii) read with Rule 50 of the P.F.A. Act read with Section 16(a)(1)(ii) of the P.F.A. Act on 14.7.82 vide Ext. Ka-9, in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Saharanpur. Notice for retesting of sample under Section 13(2) PFA Act was dispatched to the accused revisionist on 14.7.82 itself by the office of CMO, Saharanpur vide Ext Ka-10 alongwith PA report Ext. Ka-11. 4. In the trial, Food Inspector P.W. 1, Ram Singh P.W. 2 and Jal Singh, clerk in the office of CMO were examined as prosecution witnesses. The Court examined Food Inspector Mahesh Chandra as CW-1. In his defence, accused revisionist examined Mohd. Yaseen as DW1. As is stated above, since the revisionist accused was convicted and sentenced by both the Courts below, he has preferred instant revision challenging his conviction and sentence. In have heard, Sri S.W. Ali, learned counsel for the revisionist at a great length. Without being verbose, learned counsel for the revisionist centered his argument only to the maiden submission that Section 10(7) of P.F.A. Act, which is a mandatory provision, has not at all been complied with in the instant case as no independent witness was called by the Food Inspector while taking sample. Without being verbose, learned counsel for the revisionist centered his argument only to the maiden submission that Section 10(7) of P.F.A. Act, which is a mandatory provision, has not at all been complied with in the instant case as no independent witness was called by the Food Inspector while taking sample. In support of the said submission, learned counsel urged that Food Inspector P.W. 1 is a departmental person and P.W. 2 Ram Singh, the alleged independent person, in fact is the servant of Food Inspector, who was taken by the Food Inspector from his house and, therefore, no attempt was made by the Food Inspector to take sample after “calling one or more person to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signature.” Learned counsel further urged that the requirement of law is that it is only when the sample is desired to be taken by the Food Inspector that he is legally required to summon independent witnesses and draw sample in their presence. Contrary to such legal requirement Food Inspector in the present case, only to legalize his illegal act, took his domestic servant alongwith him and in his presence took the sample. The other independent witness, who is alleged to have been present at the time of taking of sample namely Phool Chandra was not examined and was intentionally and deliberately withheld as he also seems to be yes man and servant of the Food Inspector and hence no attempt was made by the Food Inspector to call respectable persons of the locality and draw sample in their presence and in fact vetting of evidences of PW2 indicate that he was taken by the Food Inspector from his house. In such fact situation no reliance can be placed on the evidences of both the fact witnesses and since mandatory provision Section 10(7) of the PFA Act, has been breached therefore conviction of the revisionist accused becomes indefensible and should be set aside. Carrying his submission further learned counsel urged that the trial Court committed an error in treating Ram Singh/PW2 to be an independent witness as by no stretch of imagination, a domestic servant of the Food Inspector’s house can be considered to be an independent person. Carrying his submission further learned counsel urged that the trial Court committed an error in treating Ram Singh/PW2 to be an independent witness as by no stretch of imagination, a domestic servant of the Food Inspector’s house can be considered to be an independent person. Since P.F.A. Act is a technical Act therefore, procedural requirement of drawing the sample has to be observed in letter and spirit and sample should be drawn only in the manner prescribed by the Statute. Articulating his submissions it is contended that if a thing is required to be done in a particular manner then either it should have be done in that manner or not at all. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the conviction of the revisionist by both the Courts below is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned AGA arguing to the contrary contended that since Ram Singh was an independent person though a domestic servant, the formality as is required under Section 10(7) of P.F.A. Act has been complied with and revision lacks merit and be dismissed. 6. I have bestowed thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have vetted through the trial Court record analytically. Restricting this judgment only to the urged submission on behalf of the revisionist it is discernible from the record that Food Inspector PW1 himself admitted that “Ram Singh is my peon. Phool Singh witness is brother-in-law of peon”. Ram Singh, who was a gang labour at PHC Gangote, was produced by the prosecution as P.W. 2 as an independent witness. When Ram Singh was cross-examined he categorically deposed that he had met the Food Inspector at Food Inspector’s house where he used to go every day morning as he is his domestic servant. His actual testimony is “FI has taken me from his house. I go to FI’s house early in the morning and do domestic work at FI’s house.” The aforesaid statement of P.W.2 predictably makes him domestic servant of FI and a partisan witness ready to abide by dictates of FI. He, by no hypothesis can be considered to be an independent witness. I go to FI’s house early in the morning and do domestic work at FI’s house.” The aforesaid statement of P.W.2 predictably makes him domestic servant of FI and a partisan witness ready to abide by dictates of FI. He, by no hypothesis can be considered to be an independent witness. It is significant to note that place of taking of sample was Titorah bus station where lots of people must have been present but no endeavour was made by the Food Inspector to call one or more independent witness prior to drawing of sample and in their presence, no sample was drawn. No where it has been deposed by PW1 that he attempted to call independent witnesses but they refused to join taking of sample. Admission of Food Inspector/PW1 that another witness Phool Singh was the brother -in- law of PW2 makes him also an interested and a partisan witness. Another fatal blow to the prosecution case is non examination of Phool Singh and with holding him consciously for ulterior motives. No explanation at all has been offered by the prosecution for not producing him. A domestic servant of Food Inspector, who works at his house from morning till evening and his brother-in-law, cannot be considered to be an independent persons against basic canon of common sense. Moreover, Food Inspector is expected to call independent witness only in the event he intends to draw a sample. The law does not enjoin that the Food Inspector should take domestic servant of his house to be an independent person. In the present case, this is exactly what the Food Inspector has done. In my humble opinion, the act of the Food Inspector is in violation of statutory provision under Section 10(7) of the Act and is an infringement of it. PFA Act being an economic offence and being technical in nature, all the procedural requirements are to be observed in consonance with the legislative intent and any breach of it must be viewed with suspicion. In my opinion I am benefited by following judicial decisions. In Dwarika Prasad v. State of Assam, 2012 CrLJ 1935 , it has held as under : “9. In my opinion I am benefited by following judicial decisions. In Dwarika Prasad v. State of Assam, 2012 CrLJ 1935 , it has held as under : “9. From the narration of facts and evidence as well it would appear that the Food Inspector (P.W. 1) while visiting the mill premises belonging to the petitioner did find presence of two persons therein whom he requested to be witness in the sample taking process. P.W. 1 in his evidence testified that those two persons whom he requested refused to become witness to the sample taking process and finding no alternative took the sample in presence of his accompanying peon (P.W. 2). From the evidence of P.W. 1, it also appears to this Court that at the vicinity of the mill there were shops and on refusal by the two persons found inside the mill premises not to become witness to the sample for taking process, no evidence is forthcoming that P.W. 1 ever tried to have the presence of the shop-keepers whose shops were situated nearby the mill. Therefore, it goes to show that the P.W. 1, the Food Inspector did not make an honest attempt to secure the presence of independent witness to witness the sample taking process. The Apex Court while dealing with the case of Shri Ram Labhaya v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1974) 4 SCC 491 , calling of the independent witness by the Food Inspector while taking action under any of the provision of sub-section considered to be a mandatory obligation on the part of the Food Inspector. However, in the case of Babu Lal Hargovindas (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that non-compliance of the provision of Section 10(7) would not vitiate the trial since the Food Inspector was not in the position of an accomplice. His evidence if believed can sustain conviction. Taking ratio laid down in Babu Lal Hargovindas ( AIR 1971 SC 1277 ) (supra), the learned Additional P.P. representing the State submits that the evidence of P.W. 1 would be sufficient to record conviction as against the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that conviction and sentence cannot sustain in view of non-following the provision of Section 10(7) of the Act would not be sustainable. 10. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that conviction and sentence cannot sustain in view of non-following the provision of Section 10(7) of the Act would not be sustainable. 10. Admittedly, there being shops at the vicinity of the mill, P.W. 1, the Food Inspector could have called one or two shop keepers to be witness to the sample taking process. Such attempt being not made by P.W. 1, it would indicate that the P.W. 1 did not try to respect his obligation as provided in the sub-section. Therefore, submissions advanced by Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner appears to have leg to stand. By amendment of 1964, the words “as far as possible” were deleted. The Apex Court in paragraph 4 of the judgment rendered in Shri Ram Labhaya (supra) observed that such deletion naturally lends plausibility to the contention that the provisions of Section 10(7) are mandatory and such observation has been so held in Food Inspector, Corporation of Calicut v. Vincen and (sic) Ram Sarup Tara Chand v. The State. From the facts and circumstances and the evidence appearing on the face of the record, it would appear to us that the Food Inspector (P.W. 1) did not make an honest attempt to call one or two independent persons to be the witness in the sample taking process.” 7. In Shri Ram Labhaya v. Minicipal Corporation of Delhi and another, (1974)4 SCC 491 , Apex Court has held as under : “3. Great reliance was placed by Counsel for the appellant on the circumstance that as required by Section 10(7) of the Act the Food Inspector did not take the sample in the presence of independent persons. It is urged that Section 10(7) is mandatory and its contravention would vitiate the conviction. 4. Section 10(7) provides: “Where the Food Inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1), sub-section (2), sub-section (4) or sub-section (6), he shall, call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures.” There can be no doubt that “one or more persons” must mean one or more independent persons. The legislative history of sub-section (7) further shows that at the least, the Food Inspector ought to try and secure the presence of one or more independent persons when he takes action under any of the provisions mentioned in the sub-section. Prior to its amendment by Act 49 of 1964, sub-section (7) ran thus: “Where the Food Inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1) ... he shall, as far as possible call not less than two persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take their signatures.” By the amendment of 1964, the words “as far as possible” were deleted. This deletion naturally lends plausibility to the contention that the provisions of Section 10(7) are mandatory and it has been so held in Food Inspector, Corporation of Calicut v. Vincent and Ram Sarup Tara Chand v. State. 5.We are of the opinion, particularly in view of the legislative history of Section 10(7), that while taking action under any of the provisions mentioned in the sub-section, the Food Inspector must call one or more independent persons to be present at the time when such action is taken.” 8. In State of H.P. v. Gulzari Lal, 2012 Cri LJ 2710, it has been held as under : “12. Further, the witness Varinder Sahani was running a ‘Karyana shop’ and was having litigation with accused No. 1 and another witness Mehar Chand is a Peon of the Food Inspector. Thus, in the present factual position they cannot be said to be independent witnesses, therefore, the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act are infracted. The said provision is evidently intended to ensure that the process of taking the sample by the Food Inspector is witnessed by one or two persons called for the purpose by the Food Inspector. Such person(s) must be disinterested and taking of the sample must be witnessed by one or two independent witnesses to lend credibility to the version of the Food Inspector when examined in the Court. Their testimonies in this case are of no help to the prosecution otherwise also on merit. The evidence on record shows that there were many other persons present at the spot when the sample was taken and it was a busy market. The Food Inspector could have easily associated one or two independent persons to witness the sampling process, which was not done. The evidence on record shows that there were many other persons present at the spot when the sample was taken and it was a busy market. The Food Inspector could have easily associated one or two independent persons to witness the sampling process, which was not done. Therefore, the case also suffers from this vice. 13. As a sequel of the aforesaid findings, the acquittal of the accused persons cannot be interfered with as the same is borne out from the record. The appeal sans merit, hence dismissed.” In view of aforesaid opinion, without deliberating further, it has to be concluded that the impugned judgment is infallible and cannot be sustained and revision deserves to be allowed. Final out come is that this Revision is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the of the revisionist vide impugned judgment and order referred to above is hereby set aside. Revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Section 7/16 P.F.A. Act. He is on bail, he need not surrender, his personal and surety bonds are discharged. Let a copy of this order be certified to the lower Court.