JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is an application in revision by Mohammad Shafaat Husain, whose conviction under Sec. 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for contravention of Sec. 7 thereof and the sentence of six month's R. 1. and a fine of Rs. 200/- was maintained by the additional Sessions Judge of Pilibhit. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute except for the fact whether the butter sample, which was taken was meant for sale or not. On 25-2-58 at about 11.15 A.M. Shri Vishnu Dube, Food Inspector, and Dr. S. N. Taneja, District Medical officer of Health, visited the dairy of the applicant and took sample of butter which was ready and was meant for sale. The sample was sealed in three phials, one of which was handed over to the applicant and the other was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and report. On the request of the applicant another sample was sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. Both reported that the sample of butter was adulterated though there was some difference in the data obtained after analysis of the sample. 3. The applicant admitted the taking of the sample. His case, in brief, was that the butter of which sample was taken was not yet ready for sale. He denied that it was adulterated. He examined two witnesses in his defence. 4. Both the lower courts accepted the prosecution story and convicted the applicant. He had been previously convicted for a similar offence and for that reason was awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment also. The Magistrate awarded a sentence less than the prescribed one for the reason that the applicant was a poor man and was running a small dairy. This was not a judicial exercise of discretion. There is the same law for the rich and poor. When the legislature decided to lay down a minimum punishment to be awarded to a previous convict, that punishment must be awarded except in exceptional circumstances. Where the sample was found to be adulterated to a nominal extent or the adulteration was not an intentional act on the part of the accused, a lesser sentence could be awarded. When the legislature decided to lay down a minimum punishment to be awarded to a previous convict, that punishment must be awarded except in exceptional circumstances. Where the sample was found to be adulterated to a nominal extent or the adulteration was not an intentional act on the part of the accused, a lesser sentence could be awarded. But to say that a poor man should be given a lesser sentence than the minimum prescribed sentence would be in one way to defeat the purpose of enactment. The Magistrate was in the wrong to award a lower sentence to poor persons. However, the present is not a case in which this Court may interfere with the discretion of the Magistrate by taking steps for enhancement of the sentence. 5. Only two points were argued before me. Firstly, that the conviction was bad for the reason that Sec. 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act had not been deliberately complied with by the Food Inspector and secondly, that the vessel in which butter was melted before being put in phials could have caused impurity and thereby vitiated the result of analysis of such sample. 6. On the first point the learned counsel relied upon the case of Raju Konar v. State, AIR 1959 Madras 118 It was also urged that principles of Sec. 103, Cr. P. C. should be complied with rigour in cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act also. It is provided in Sec. 103, Cr. P. C. that the person conducting the search shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality to witness the search. On the other hand, in Sec. 1.0 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the legislature intentionally added the words 'as far as possible.' Consequently, it will be improper to apply the case law of Sec. 103, Cr. P. C. with the same rigour to cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 7. A perusal of the case reported in A.I.R. 1959 Madras 118 will make it clear that even though the learned Judge was satisfied that the milk was adulterated, he considered it necessary to acquit the accused whenever the provisions of Sec. 10 (7) had not been complied with. With due respect, I would differ from that view. 7. A perusal of the case reported in A.I.R. 1959 Madras 118 will make it clear that even though the learned Judge was satisfied that the milk was adulterated, he considered it necessary to acquit the accused whenever the provisions of Sec. 10 (7) had not been complied with. With due respect, I would differ from that view. One of the meaning which can be assigned to the use of the words 'as far as possible' in Sec. 10 (7) is that the sample should be taken in the presence of two or more respectable witnesses unless they are not available. Another view which would be more equitable is that this rule should be rigorously applied where the prosecution is mala fide or in the opinion of the court, non-compliance of the rule has caused prejudice to the accused. But where it appears that what the prosecution witnesses are deposing is true and the accused has not in any way been prejudiced by the noncompliance of Sec. 10 (7), the law should take its normal course, namely, that the guilty person should be punished. 8. Coming to the present case, the applicant in one way pleaded ill will with the Food Inspector only and not with the District Medical Officer of Health, who is a Gazetted Officer belonging to the Health Department. Health Officers are not under the influence of their subordinate officials, i.e. Sanitary Inspectors, and for that reason Dr. Taneja would not have thought of concocting a false case simply to please a subordinate official. Consequently, the statement of Dr. Taneja can be accepted in full and conviction based thereon. Further, the applicant virtually admitted the prosecution story. He has not challenged the taking of the sample. What he challenges is the talks that took place at the time the sample was taken. According to Dr. Taneja, he was informed by the applicant that butter contained in the vessel was ready for sale though cakes had not been prepared. He further deposed that some butter was taken from the vessel when cakes already prepared were found to be insufficient for the purpose of sample. 9. The defence version, on the other hand, is that the sample was not taken of prepared cakes of butter and intentionally butter was taken from the vessel though it was mentioned that it was not yet ready for sale. 10. 9. The defence version, on the other hand, is that the sample was not taken of prepared cakes of butter and intentionally butter was taken from the vessel though it was mentioned that it was not yet ready for sale. 10. The prosecution case was rightly accepted. Firstly, because Dr. Taneja is an independent and respectable witness who was not in any way displeased with the applicant. The second ground for accepting the prosecution case would be the subsequent conduct of the applicant himself. It was after many months of the detection of the crime that he took up the defence plea detailed above. He did not put down his defence version on the various documents on which his signature was obtained. Nor did he complain or move an application before any authority giving his version of the occurrence. The defence version appears to have been given for the first time on 25-7-1958 when he was examined before the Magistrate. In other words, the prosecution case was rightly accepted to be correct. 11. The composition of butter would not have changed when it was heated for being poured into phials. The vessel in which the butter was boiled could not have caused the impurities as found in the sample. This is apparently an afterthought to get over the effect of the criminal offence committed by the applicant. 12. The revision application has thus no force and it is hereby dismissed summarily.