S.S. Dewan, J.
1. Kashmir Singh son of Partap Singh, resident of Mullanwala was tried for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur acquitted him. The State of Punjab has filed appeal against the order of Ms acquittal, notice of which was given to Kashmir Singh,
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that on 29-10-1975, Dr. Harjit Singh, Food Inspector intercepted the accused-respondent in Mandi Gurdaspur while he was in possession of cow's milk in a brass donna for sale. The doctor disclosed his identity and intention of taking sample of cow's milk for analysis, to the respondent. He purchased 660 mis. of cow's milk against payment of Rs. 1/-. The milk was then divided into three equal parts and put into three dry and clean bottles and thereafter, the same were stoppered and sealed. One of the sealed bottles was sent to' the Public Analyst for analysis. On receipt of report from the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector filed the complaint against the respondent in the Court for his prosecution. The prosecution examined Dr. Harjit Singh (P. W. 1) in support of its case. When the respondent was examined, he denied the allegations made against him and pleaded false complicity in this case but led no evidence in defence.
3. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution came to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution failed on the short' ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act).
4. After going through the evidence of the case and hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the reasoning given by the trial Judge for acquitting the accused-respondent cannot be dispelled.
5. The main question to be considered in this case is whether the evidence of Dr, Harjit' Singh, Government Food Inspector (P. W. 1), is sufficient to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent. It is clear from the evidence of Dr. Harjit Singh, that he did not join any witness at the time he purchased the cow's milk from the respondent for analysis. It is well-settled that the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act are not mandatory but' are only directory, yet the Food Inspectors cannot give -a complete go-bye to these provisions. It is necessary for a Food Inspector to make sincere efforts to comply with Section 10(7) of the Act' and only where the Court is convinced of the sincerity of the efforts made by a Food Inspector to join independent witnesses that the conviction can be based on the testimony of the Food Inspector alone. In the instant case, absolutely no effort was made by the Food Inspector to comply with these provisions. This being so, the testimony of the Food Inspector by itself loses its value to a great extent and the conviction of the respondent on that testimony alone would not be warranted. It was under these circumstances that the trial court disbelieved the evidence of Dr. Harjit Singh (P. W. 1).
6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances we do not find any illegality in the judgment under appeal. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed,
Kulwant Singh Tiwana, J.
7. I agree.