The second respondent, Shri Dalichand Jain, has been acquitted of charge under Section 16(1) read with Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, shortly, "the Act', on two grounds, namely, that the seller of the sample could not be shown to be an employee of the accused firm; and that the Food Inspector had not followed the mandatory provision by calling at least one witness at the time of taking sample. Both the findings are challenged in this appeal by the Food Inspector.

2. As regards the seller, the evidence of P. W. 1 is that when the Food Inspector, P. W. 1 entered the shop, M/s. Surajmal Amarchand, the first respondent, the second respondent Dulichand Jain, a partner of that firm, was present in the shop, and on disclosure of the former's identity and purpose of tak­ing sample of 'papad' the second respondent agreed to accept notice but instead of taking it himself, he instructed his sales­man, Umidmal Jain, to receive the notice and Umidmal accord­ingly received the same and signed the acknowledgment in presence of P. W. 1 and Babul Chandra Bezbarua, P. W. 2 Ext. 1(2) is Umidmall's signature. At that time the second respondent was sitting in the ga