M.R. VERMA, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment dated July 4, 1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur whereby the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused/respondent (hereafter referred to as the accused’) by the learned Judicial Magistrate I-Class, Hamirpur under Section 16 (l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) has been set aside and the accused has been acquitted of the said offence.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused is running a Karyana’ shop in village Lambloo. On November 28, 1991, PW-1 K.S. Verma, Food Inspector visited the shop of the accused and purchased 600 gms. of Besan for the purpose of sample on payment of price. The sample was thereafter divided into three equal parts and was kept in three neat, clean and dry bottles and was thereafter dealt with in accordance with the manner provided therefor. On analysis, the Public Analyst vide report Ext. PF found that the sample contained maize starch as an admixture whereas Besan should not contain any foreign ingredients. Thus, the Besan in question was found adulterated. After obtaining due sanction, PW-1 K.S. Verma initiated the prosecution of the accused by lodging a complaint against him under Section 16 (l)(a)(i) of the Act.

3. The accused came to tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I-Class (I), Hamirpur who vide his judgment dated February 27, 1993 held the accused guilty of the commission of offence punishable under Section 16 (l)(a)(i) of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur who vide the impugned judgment acquitted the accused after setting aside the conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned trial Magistrate. The State has now come up in this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

5. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the accused.

6. It was argued by the learned Deputy Advocate General that as per the report of the Public Analyst Ex.PF, the sample in question contained maize starch, a foreign substance, therefore, the Besan sample was adulterated within the meaning of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the accused could not have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the quantity of maize starch found in the sample was not specifically mentioned by him in the report. To support his contention, the learned Deputy Advocate General has cited a few judgments which need not be reproduced/referred to here, for the reason that the correct proposition of law is that where a standard for any food article has been prescribed by the Statute, nothing can be added to or substracted therefrom when it comes to decide whether an article of food was adulterated or not. The standard of quality of Besan is specified in Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Para No. A-18.04 prescribed the standard for Besan and reads as follows: "BESAN means the product obtained by grinding dehusked Bangal (Cicer arietinum) and shall not contain any added colouring matter or any other foreign ingredient." Thus, presence of any added colouring matter or any other foreign ingredient in Besan, if found, the Besan will not be as per the standard and, thus, will be adulterated.

7. Raising no dispute about the aforesaid settled proposition of law, the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused is two-fold, viz., (1) the manner in which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector was not proper inasmuch as it left room for mixing of maize starch with the sample at the time of taking it and (2) that no independent witness was joi