Judgment : 1. This is a State appeal against the judgment of the acquittal of the respondent recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati on 21.8.2001, in Regular Criminal Complaint Case No.83 of 1993. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the appeal are as under: The respondent was proprietor of M/s. Mahakali Tel Bhandar, Amravati dealing in sale of various vegetable oils. On 29.9.1992, at about 13.30 hours the Food Inspector visited the shop of the respondent along with one panch witness. The Food Inspector collected samples of groundnut oil and linseed oil from the oil kept in containers in the shop of the respondent. The samples were collected by following proper procedure. They were divided into three parts, one of which was sent to Public Analyst, Amravati and two were sent to Local Health Authority, Amravati. The Food Inspector followed prescribed procedure for sealing the samples and sending them to the Public Analyst as well as Local Health Authority. The report of the Public Analyst was received and it disclosed that the linseed oil sample did not conform to the standards prescribed for linseed oil in P.F.A. Rules 1955. Therefore, a complaint was filed against the respondent. 3. As it was found that prima facie case was made out against the respondent, the respondent was charged for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 7(i) and Section 2(ia)(a)(m) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Rules made thereunder and tried for it. After considering the evidence brought on record by the complainant and hearing both sides, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found that the prosecution could not prove the charge so framed against the respondent and, therefore, by his judgment and order dated 21.8.2001 acquitted the respondent of the said charge. 4. I have heard Mr.Neeraj Patil, learned A.P.P. for the appellant/State and Mr.Anoop Gilda, learned counsel for the respondent. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order and prosecution evidence. 5. It is seen from the evidence of Food Inspector, PW 1-Sukumar Annu Choudhary that he had not mentioned anything in the panchanama about collecting the sample of linseed oil from the oil stored in a container in the shop after stirring oil and making it a homogeneous one. 5. It is seen from the evidence of Food Inspector, PW 1-Sukumar Annu Choudhary that he had not mentioned anything in the panchanama about collecting the sample of linseed oil from the oil stored in a container in the shop after stirring oil and making it a homogeneous one. This witness has of course stated in his evidence before the Court that he had obtained the sample only after making the oil in the container homogeneous by stirring it by means of a stirrer oil already kept in the shop. But, there is absolutely no mention about this fact in the panchanama thereby creating a doubt about the evidence of the Food Inspector on this aspect of the case. 6. It must be mentioned here that it is a well settled law that the sample of oil must be obtained after the oil is made homogeneous by vigorously stirring it and if the sample is not so obtained, it cannot be regarded as a representative sample thereby vitiating the analysis report given by the public analyst. Therefore, it would have to be seen as to whether the panch witness, who had seen the whole action of taking and purchasing of the sample supports the prosecution case or not. PW 3-Jagdish is the panch witness. But unfortunately, he turned hostile and did not support in any manner with the prosecution case. 7. Thus, it can be seen that the evidence of Food Inspector has not been supported by panch witness, which was very much necessary in this case as the panchanama vide Exhibit-44 is silent about obtaining of the sample after vigorously stirring the oil and making it homogeneous. If no support is coming forth from the evidence of PW 3-panch witness, there would be no option but to give benefit of doubt to the respondent and this is what has been done by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly placed reliance upon the case of 1993(1) P.F.A. Cases 118, Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a view that when there is no evidence regarding mentioning of stirring of oil before taking of sample in the complaint and memo of purchase, the Food Inspector’s evidence about stirring would not be enough to fill up the lacuna. No perversity and no arbitrariness can be seen in the impugned judgment and order deserving no interference with them. 8. In the result, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. 9. Bail bonds of the respondent are discharged.