A.R. JOSHI, J.

1. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State appellant. None present for the respondents/acquitted accused persons. Though it is such a situation as to absence of the respondents and their Advocate, the present appeal is taken up for final hearing, as it was prolonged since the year 2001 and nearly 11 years have elapsed when the question before bench is whether the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be interfered with.

2. Initially, all the 11 accused, who are the Manager, President and officer bearers of M/s. Hanuman Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sanstha, Dhargaon, were charged for various offences punishable under Sections 7(i) read with Section 2 (ia) (a) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii), Section 7 (i) read with Section 2 (ia) (a) punishable under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) and Section 7(v) read with Rule 50 punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) read with Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (as amended) and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules , 1955 (as amended).

3. Charge was framed against all the accused. The trial was conducted in which three prosecution witnesses were examined including the complainant Food Inspector and two panch witnesses, in whose presence, alleged samples were taken from one of the milk containers/cans, out of total 8 milk cans. Finding the evidence of complainant PW 1 not reliable to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences charged, mainly due to hostility of both panch witnesses, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons of the offences mentioned above. The said impugned judgment and order passed on 16 th October, 2000 is challenged by the State in this appeal.

4. Considering the scope of the present appeal of challenging the order of acquittal, though there is none present for the respondents to argue the matter, it is thought fit to proceed further with the appeal to hear the appeal on merits and as such this Court has gone through the evidence and record and proceedings with the help of the learned A.P.P. The arguments of learned A.P.P. are also heard.

5. The facts leading to filing of the complaint are as under: The Food Inspector Complainant visited M/s Hanuman Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sanstha Dhargaon, District Bhandara, on 14/5/1997. The Manager of the dairy, one of the accused, was present. During inspection 240 liters of cow's milk was found collected from the members of the society and was kept for sale in 8 containers/cans. The Food Inspector purchased 750 ml of milk from one of the cans and three samples were prepared, out of the said milk. After completing the formalities, one sample was sent to Public Analyst, Nagpur. The Analysis Report revealed that the milk sample did not conform the standard prescribed in the cow milk as per Item no. A11DL11 of appendix E of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

6. The prosecution was launched against the respondents after obtaining sanction from the Competent Authority. The respondents challenged the report of Public Analyst. As such, another sample was sent for analysis to Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. Again similar report was sent by the said Laboratory, as the sample did not conform the standard for the cow milk.

7. During the trial, as mentioned above, only three witnesses were examined. According to the prosecution, only substantive evidence of PW 1 ‘Complainant’ Food Inspector, is sufficient to establish the charges levelled against the accused persons though both the panchas did not support the case of the prosecution as to taking of sample in the manner prescribed. What weighed with the Trial Court was hostility of the pancha witnesses and probable defence of the accused persons as to sample was taken from only one container/can, which was kept not for sale but for preparing curds. On carefully going through the reasoning given by the Trial Court in not appreciating the evidence of sole testimony of PW1, it must be said that