ORDER : 1. Petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 25.01.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Deeg, Bharatput, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 04.12.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, Bharatppur, for convicting the petitioner under Section 7 (i)/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act of 1954') has been dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court for convicting the petitioner under the aforesaid offences and awarding sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- has been confirmed with three months simple imprisonment in case of default. 2. It is submitted that one criminal compliant (P-14) was filed by the Food Inspector, Circle Deeg, in the Court of ACJM, Deeg, on 03.07.1996 alleging the facts that on 17.04.1996 at around 9:30 a.m., when he was going with his assistant near Goverdhan Dairy, he found that one milkman was coming with milk tank. The Food Inspector checked the milk of the milkman, on the suspicion that the milk was adulterated and collected 750 gms of milk. He prepared three samples in three separate bottles after adding formalin for preservation. After sealing the same, it was sent for Public Analysis Laboratory for examination, where from he received information with regard to the milk being adulterated. Hence, after obtaining a sanction from the Competent Authority, a criminal complaint for committing offences under Section 7 (i)/16 of the Act of 1954 was filed against the petitioner. 3. After taking pre-charge evidence, charge under Section 7 (i)/16 of the Act of 1954 was framed against the petitioner, who denied the charges and requested for trying the same. 4. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PW1-Giriraj Prasad (Food Inspector), PW2-Mukesh, PW3-Sohan Lal as prosecution witnesses and produced documentary evidence also. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused-petitioner were taken, who denied the allegations levelled by the prosecution, however, did not produce any evidence in defence. Therefore, arguments were heard and vide judgment and order dated 04.12.2001, after convicting the petitioner for committing offence under Section 7 (i)/16 of the Act of 1954, sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner and in case of failure of depositing the fine, an additional sentence of three months was to be under gone by the petitioner. 5. 5. The petitioner challenged a judgment and order dated 04.12.2001 by way of filing appeal in the Court of Additional Session Judge No.1, Deeg, however, the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide judgment dated 25.01.2007 and judgment and order dated 04.12.2001 passed by the trial Court was confirmed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the learned Courts below have totally misappreciated the evidence and provisions of the Act of 1954 and have convicted the petitioner on the basis of misappreciation of evidence and misconstruction of mandatory provisions of law. It was submitted that the sample was not duly collected by the Food Inspector in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1954. It was further submitted that even the report of testing by the Public Health Laboratory, Bharatpur (Exhibit-P8) did not suggest any adulteration whatsoever in the milk which was brought for sale by the petitioner. It is submitted that as per prescribed standards for different classes and designation of milk prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, 'the Rules of 1955'), for buffalo milk in Rajasthan as per prescribed standard, the milk fat should be more than 5.0% and milk solids non-fat should be more than 9.0%. It is submitted that the report (Exhibit-P8) would reveal that in the sample collected from the petitioner, the milk fat in the milk tested by the laboratory was found to be 6.0% and milk solids non-fat was 8.0%. Thus, so far as milk fat is concerned, the milk of the petitioner was conforming with the standards laid down under the Rules, however, the report showed some deficiency as the milk solid non-fat was 8.0% instead of it being 9.0%. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such minor variation was on account of not collecting the sample properly in accordance with provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1954. He also submits that the report Exhibit-P8 reflects that so far as test for detection of sugar, detection of starch, detection of urea and detection of detergent is concerned, all such foreign particles were not found and the report was negative in this regard. He also submits that the report Exhibit-P8 reflects that so far as test for detection of sugar, detection of starch, detection of urea and detection of detergent is concerned, all such foreign particles were not found and the report was negative in this regard. On account of there being no foreign particle in the milk and only on account of the fact that there was a small shortfall in the standard of milk solids non-fat, it cannot be said that the milk was adulterated. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sh. Giriraj Prasad, Food Inspector, appeared as witness PW-1 and deposed that on 17.04.1996 on account of suspicion, he stopped the petitioner and took sample of milk and divided the same in three sample parts and after stirring the same, it was kept in three different bottles and was seized after mixing 20-20 drops of formalin as preservative. The bottles were sealed in air-tight container and label was pasted thereupon. He called Mukesh-dairy man as there was no other witnesses and thereafter sent the sample for testing in laboratory. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this deposition of PW-1 Food Inspector reveals that after collecting the samples and after sealing bottles of samples, he called Mukesh (PW-2) as independent witnesses, which is a material flaw and violation in the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the Act of 1954. He further submits that both the learned Courts below have utterly failed to appreciate that the sole independent witness-Mukesh turned hostile and did not support the story of prosecution. Under these circumstances, there being no legitimate piece of evidence against the petitioner, he could not have been convicted for committing offences under Section 7 (i)/16 of the Act of 1954. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thus, the learned Courts below have neither appreciated the evidence in right perspective, nor construed the provisions of law in proper manner and have committed serious error of law as well as jurisdictional error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijendra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , Criminal Appeal No. 1167/2019 decided on 31.07.2019 and order dated 04.05.1994 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 132/1986 in the case of Administrator of the City of Nagpur Vs. Laxman & Anr. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijendra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , Criminal Appeal No. 1167/2019 decided on 31.07.2019 and order dated 04.05.1994 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 132/1986 in the case of Administrator of the City of Nagpur Vs. Laxman & Anr. 11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Revision Petition and submitted the learned Courts below, after examining the facts of the case, material and evidence on record as well as law prevailing at the relevant time, have passed the impugned judgments, in which there is no perversity or illegality, hence, no interference is called for in the impugned judgments. 12. It is submitted that there was consistent evidence on record to show that the sample of milk collected from the petitioner was not inconformity with the standards prescribed in the Rules of 1955, which comes within the definition of adulteration and therefore, the petitioner has rightly been convicted by the trial Court after due analysis of evidence on record and the judgment of trial Court has been affirmed by the Appellate Court. 13. It is further submitted that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is not excessive and is proportionate to the guilt committed by the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the record. 15. Since, the case in hand revolves around the provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1954, therefore, it would be relevant to reproduce the same as under: " 11. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the record. 15. Since, the case in hand revolves around the provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1954, therefore, it would be relevant to reproduce the same as under: " 11. Procedure to be followed by food inspectors: (1) When a food inspector takes a sample of food for analysis, he shall- (a) give notice in writing then and there of his intention to have it so analysed to the person from whom he has taken the sample and to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14A; (b) except in special cases provided by rules under this Act, divide the sample then and there into three parts and mark and seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits and take the signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken in such place and in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that where such person refuses to sign or put his thumb impression the food inspector shall call upon one or more witnesses and take his or their signatures or thumb impressions, as the case may be, in lieu of the signature or thumb impression of such person; (c) (i) send one of the parts for analysis to the public analyst under intimation to the Local (Health) Authority; (ii) send the remaining two parts to the Local (Health) Authority, for the purposes of sub-section (2) of this section and sub-sections (2A) and (2E) of section 13. [(2) Where the part of the sample sent to the public analyst under sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) is lost or damaged, the Local (Health) Authority shall, on a requisition made to it by the public analyst or the food inspector despatch one of the parts of the sample sent to it under sub-clause (ii) of the said clause (c) to the public analyst for analysis.] (3) When a sample of any article of food [or adulterant] is taken under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 10, [the food inspector shall, by the immediately succeeding working day, send a sample of the article of food or adulterant or both, as the case may be,] in accordance with the rules prescribed for sampling to the public analyst for the local area concerned. [(4) An article of food seized under sub-section (4) of section 10, unless destroyed under sub- section (4A) of that section, and any adulterant seized under sub-section (6) of that section shall be produced before a magistrate as soon as possible and in any case not later than seven days after the receipt of the report of the public analyst;] Provided that if an application is made to the magistrate in this behalf by the person from whom any article of food has been seized, the magistrate shall by order in writing direct the food inspector to produce such article before him within such time as may be specified in the order. [(5) If it appears to the magistrate on taking such evidence as he may deem necessary- (a) that the article of food produced before him under sub-section (4) is adulterated or misbranded, he may order it- (i) to be forfeited to the Central Government, the State Government or the local authority, as the case may be; or (ii) to be destroyed at the cost of the owner or the person from whom it was seized so as to prevent its being used as human food; or (iii) to be so disposed of as to prevent its being again exposed for sale or used for food under its deceptive name; or (iv) to be returned to the owner, on his executing a bond with or without sureties, for being sold under its appropriate name or where the magistrate is satisfied that the article of food is capable of being made to conform to prescribed standards for human consumption after reprocessing, for being sold after reprocessing under the supervision of such officer as may be specified in the order; (b) that the adulterant seized under sub- section (6) of section 10 and produced before him is apparently of a kind which may be employed for purposes of adulteration and for the possession of which the manufacturer, distributor or dealer, as the case may be, is unable to account satisfactorily, he may order it to be forfeited to the Central Government, the State Government or the local authority, as the case may be.] (6) [If it appears to the magistrate that any such (a) article of food is not adulterated; (b) adulterant which is purported to be an adulterant is not an adulterant, the person from whose possession the article of food or adulterant was taken] shall be entitled to have it restored to him and it shall be in the discretion of the magistrate to award such person from such fund as the State Government may direct in this behalf, such compensation, not exceeding the actual loss which he has sustained as the magistrate may think proper." 16. Aforesaid provision of the Act provides a meticulous procedure for collecting the sample in the manner prescribed, as well as for collecting the sample in presence of independent witness. 17. Aforesaid provision of the Act provides a meticulous procedure for collecting the sample in the manner prescribed, as well as for collecting the sample in presence of independent witness. 17. In the instant case, it is evident that PW2-Mukesh has been produced by the prosecution as independent witness, who was available at the time of taking the sample. The statements given by the Food Inspector-PW1 does not suggest in a specific manner as to whether such independent witness (PW-2) was called prior to the collection of the sample and sealing of the sample bottles or thereafter. The statements in this regard are quite sketchy and does not give any conclusive evidence in this respect. 18. Nevertheless, PW2-Mukesh, who was produced as independent witness to verify the proper collection and preparation of sample as per the provisions of the Act of 1954, turned hostile and even during the cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he submitted that he does not know petitioner and when the sample was collected, he was not present at the spot. Thus, the said independent witness has not supported the story of the prosecution. 19. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the evidence given by the prosecution with regard to collection and preparation of the sample is not consistent and there is no legitimate piece of evidence to suggest that the provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1954 were duly followed by the Food Inspector in accordance with of the Act of 1954. Thus, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges under Section 7 (i)/16 of the Act of 1954 beyond reasonable doubt. 20. In the case of Vijendra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "17. In that background, in the instant case, as already noticed the Public Analyst had opined that the milk sample was deficient by 12 per cent in milk fat and 27 per cent in non-fatty solids. The said results would become relevant only if it is established that the sample taken for such analysis was also in a proper manner after stirring which would make the fat and non-fat into homogenous mixture. Hence, in that regard appropriate evidence was necessary more particularly, when PW-3 who was claimed to be an independent witness has not supported the prosecution. Hence, in that regard appropriate evidence was necessary more particularly, when PW-3 who was claimed to be an independent witness has not supported the prosecution. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view, the uncorroborated testimony of PW- 1-Food Inspector cannot be relied upon to sustain the conviction." 21. Thus, the aforesaid judgment would make it clear that for the purpose of establishing that the sample was taken for analysis in a proper manner, evidence of independent witness is necessary and essential, however, in the instant case, the independent witness has turned hostile and has not supported the story of the prosecution. Apart from above, Exhibit-P8 which is the analysis report suggests that there is no foreign contents in the sample of milk and there was a negligible shortfall in the prescribed standard with regard to milk solids non-fat where instead of 9.0% it was 8.0%. Therefore, where under the similar circumstances, where in the case of Administrator of the City of Nagpur (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the similar case for shortfall and the acquittal granted by the learned Courts below was upheld. 22. In the light of above discussion, I find that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner. 23. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. Judgments dated 25.01.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Deeg & 04.12.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, are hereby, quashed and set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges under Section 7 (i)/16 of the Act of 1954. 24. The petitioner is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and a surety bond of the like amount in accordance with the provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)/481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ) before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within four weeks from today to the effect that in the event of filing of special leave petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the petitioner, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The bail bonds will be effective for a period of six months. 25. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back.