Vyas Dev Misra, J.
(1) M/S. Manak Chand Jai Ram Singh, a partnership fimr, are wholesale foodgrain merchants. They have installed a grinding machine at their shop in Rui Mandi, Saddar Bazar, Delhi. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 are the partners. On July 19, 1973 Food Inspectors Kanwal Krishan, P.S. Gupta, G.P. Baweja and S.C. Sharma of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, went to the respondents' shop. From there Kanwal Krishan, Food Inspector, duly purchased a sample of Dal-chana for analysis. Shortly thereafter Food Inspector P.S. Gupta purchased two samples of Dal-chana for analysis. The samples were sent to the Public Analyst who declared all the samples adulterated because of the presence of Kesri Dal. The sample lifted by Kanwal Krishan had Kesri Dal to the extent of 13.53%. The samples lifted by Food Inspector P.S. Gupta had Kesri Dal to the extent of 10.09 per cent and 7.02 per cent.
(2) Two complaints under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the respondents. One complaint was regarding the sample lifted by Kanwal Krishan, Pood Inspector, while the other was about the two samples lifted by Food inspector P.S. Gupta. The latter case was decided first, i.e., on Sept. 5, 1975. The trial court found the respondents guilty and sentenced them. The former complaint was decided on Nov. 2, 1975 and the respondents were convicted and sentenced in that case also by the trial court. The respondents filed two separate appeals challenging their convictions and sentences. These were registered as Criminal Appeals Nos. 95 of 1975 and 162 of 1975. Both these appeals were disposed of by Mr. P.K. Bahri, Additional Sessions Judge, by a common judgment. He upheld the conviction of the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 1975, which related to the two samples lifted by Food Inspector, P.S Gupta. Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 1975, which real ted to a sample lifted by Food Inspector Kanwal Krishan was allowed and the convications and the sentences awarded to the respondents were quashed and set aside. The Corporation filed the present appeal against the acquittal of the respondents. The lower appellate Court allowed the respondents appeal by holding that they could not be tried because of Section 403 of Cr. P.C. 1898. He relied on the judgment of Supreme Court reperted in Om Prakash v. Delhi Administration 1976. FAJ. 222.
(3) Now, there is no evidence on record to show that Kanwal Krishan and P.S. Gupta, Food Inspectors, lifted the samples from different receptacles. It is true that Food Inspector P.S. Gupta, appearing as Public Witness . 5, docs state that there were 8 or 10 gunny bags containing Dal Chana Iying in the shop. However, neither Food Inspectar Kanwal Krishan nor Food Inspector P.S. Gupta stated that they had taken the samples out of any of these bags. It is not uncommon to keep foodgrains loose on the floor for grinding. According to the prosecution Dal chana was to be ground to besan. Be that as it may as we have already stated there is no evidence on record to show that these Food Inspectors had taken samples of Dal'chana from different receptacles.
(4) Contention has been raised by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, that the variation of Kesri Dal found in different samples per se shows that the samples were lifted either from different stocks or from different receptacles. We are afraid no such presumption can be drawn. For example, if a big stock of Dal chana was lying on the floor and the Food Inspectors were lift me samples from its different corners, there could be a likelihood of Kesri Dal being present in differing quantities in each samples.
(5) In our opinion the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in applying Section 403 Cr. P, and acquitting the respondents. The appeal is, thereforee, dismis sed.