D.P. Sood, J.—Both the above said appeals, registered as Criminal Appeal 440 of 1988 and Criminal Appeal 486 of 1988, arise out of a common order and are based on common facts. I, therefore, propose to decide both these appeals by a common judgment.

2. The State of H.P. has assailed the judgment dated May 31, 1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba in the above said two criminal appeals, reversing the judgment dated July I, 1986 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba District, and directing the acquittal of the accused persons, two in number. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under :

3. Partap Singh is the owner of the shop under the name and style of "Partap Tea Stall". He is related to Satnam Singh, as the latters maternal uncle. The perusal of the record discloses that Partap Singh aforesaid was the victim of 1984 riots His shop was destroyed by the mob after the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister. He closed his shop but opened it at the behest of the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate uptil December 21, 1984 and thereafter he left for Amritsar alongwith his family members, excepting his mother. He remained engaged in the treatment of his wife at Amritsar till his return to Chamba in March 1985. The keys of the shop remained with his mother,

4. On January 23, 1985, Shri Jagat Ram, Food Inspector (PW 1) visited the shop of Partap Singh at Sapri Bazar, Chamba and found Satnam Singh respondent selling tea. About 40 kgs, of milk was also lying in two containers. PW 1, after expressing his intention to lift the sample of milk for the purpose of analysis, issued notice (Ex. PA) to Satnam Singh in the presence of Shakshi Pal (PW 3). The milk contained in two containers was stirred and 660 mis, against payment of Rs. 1.85 vide receipt (Ex. PB) signed by Satnam Singh and Shakshi Pal, was duly purchased. After observing codal formalities of cleaning three bottles, drying up, adding formaline drops, closing the same with stoppers, lebelling, wrapping the same in Khakhi paper and sealing the same, one of the sample milk bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat by a registered parcel alongwith Form VII The other samples were kept in the office of Local Health Authority at Chamba in safe custody in accordance with the rules, The Public Analyst caused the sample to be analysed and found percentage of milk-fat deficient by 36% and that of milk-solids-not-fat deficient by 11% than the minimum prescribed standard In other words, as per the report dated February 28, 1 85 (Ex. PE), the milk sample was found to be adulterated. Notice as envisaged under section 13 was sent to Partap Singh on his address of Chamba through Satnam Singh. Thereafter, he filed the complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called as the Act), who after holding trial, convicted both the accused vide his order dated July 1, 1986, which was appealed against and the lower appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and recorded the acquittal of both the respondents. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the State has challenged the findings arrived at by the lower Appellate Court through the instant appeals, two in number.

5. Mr. H.L. Karwa, learned Assistant Advocate General, has vehemently attempted to convince this Court that the circumstances appearing from the record reveal close relationship in between the respondents Partap Singh and Satnam Singh, and the carrying on of the business on the relevant date and time by Satnam Singh respondent for and on behalf of his co-accused—Partap Singh. He points out that the factum of the shop in question having been opened on the relevant date, time and place, coupled with the sale of tea and large quantity of milk i.e 40 kgs. lying there in the shop in two containers, indicates that Satnam Singh aforesaid, was carrying on the