JUDGMENT Takru, J. - This appeal, by special leave, is directed against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge of Kanpur. It arises under the following Circumstances. 2. On 6 12-1956, at about 3 in the morning Saraswati Prasad Nigam (PW 1) a Food Inspector of the Kanpur Municipal Board, found Mohan Lal, the Respondent, exposing cow milk for sale in premises No. 59/2, Birhana Road, Kanpur. He purchased three paos of milk from the Respondent and after sampling it in equal quantities in three clean phials and labeling and sealing those phials on the spot in the presence of the Respondent and two witnesses, gave one of those phials to the Respondent, along with a nonce (Ex, P2). One of those sample phials was sent to the Public Analyst, UP for analysis and on receipt of his report (Ex P4) stating that the sample was found to be adulterated the Respondent was charged for the offence punishable u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (herein after referred to as the Act). 3. The Respondent denied the prosecution case. He admitted that on the date and time in question he had some milk with him which was meant for his consumption and the consumption of his friends. He denied having sold any portion of that milk to the Food Inspector or to have received any price for it from him. On the contrary he asserted that the Food Inspector had forcibly taken sample of the milk from him and had got him to put his thumb marks on various papers. Two witnesses were examined by the Respondent in his defence. 4. The trial court on a consideration of the entire evidence found the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt and on that finding convicted and sentenced the Respondent to six months RI and a fine of Rs. 60/- in default to two months further RI. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed that judgment, allowed the appeal and acquitted the Respondent. The Municipal Board, through its Medical Officer of Health, has come up in appeal, by special leave to this Court. 5. 60/- in default to two months further RI. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed that judgment, allowed the appeal and acquitted the Respondent. The Municipal Board, through its Medical Officer of Health, has come up in appeal, by special leave to this Court. 5. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact to the effect (1) that the Food Inspector did not employ any compulsion in getting the Respondents thumb marks on the various papers and (2) that the Respondent was exposing milk for sale and sold a portion of it to the Food Inspector as sample on the date and time alleged by the prosecution. The lower appellate court, however, ordered the acquittal of the Respondent on three grounds: (1) because there had been a contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (vii) of Section 10 of the Act, (2) because the analysis of the milk sample was made after a lapse of one month and five days so that in its view, no reliance could be placed upon the said analysis and (3) because the provisions of Section 21 of the Act not having been complied with in the present case, there was nothing to show that the extra water which was found in the sample was due to any act of the Respondent. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that none of the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are sound and his order of acquittal cannot, therefore, be sustained We shall deal with those reasons seriatim. 7. The first reason given by the lower appellate Court for disbelieving the prosecution case is the failure on its part to lead independent evidence to prove the taking of the sample by the Food Inspector and the preparation of the various papers by him as required by Sub-section (vii) of Section 10 of the Act. In our opinion this reason is based upon a misreading of the said provision of law. All that Sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the Act lays down is that the Food Inspector when taking samples of any article of food which he considers to be adulterated food shall, as far as possible, call not less than two persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take their signatures. All that Sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the Act lays down is that the Food Inspector when taking samples of any article of food which he considers to be adulterated food shall, as far as possible, call not less than two persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take their signatures. There is nothing in the aforesaid provision of law which makes it obligatory on the Food Inspector to have at least two persons present whenever he proposes to take sample of food which he considers adulterated. The words "as far as possible" used therein completely negative that construction. Besides in the present case the evidence of the Food Inspector shows that he did try to get independent persons to witness the taking of the sample, but none of them were willing to oblige him and he was forced to seek the assistance of the Municipal peons, who had accompanied him in that behalf. Under these Circumstances we fail to see how there has been any breach of the provisions of Sub-section (vii) of Section 10 of the Act. The first reason given by the lower appellate court is, therefore, clearly untenable. 8. The second reason given by the lower appellate court is clearly contrary to one of the mandatory provisions of the Act and hence is liable to be rejected. The report of the Public Analyst (Ex P4) shows that the sample sent to him was adulterated and was not of the standard quality. The analytical data given in that report also show that the sample contained non fatty solids to the extent of 5 per cent and 41 per cent thereof consisted of added water. The report further states in unambiguous language that "no change had taken place in the constituents of the milk which could have interfered with analysis." u/s 13(5) of the Act the report of the Public Analyst must be held to be correct unless superseded, in the manner laid down in that section, by that of the Director of Central Food Laboratory. If the Respondent was not satisfied with the report of the Public Analyst it was open to him to have the sample sent for reexamination by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. If the Respondent was not satisfied with the report of the Public Analyst it was open to him to have the sample sent for reexamination by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. His failure to do so precludes him from subsequently challenging the correctness of the report of the Public Analyst and the said report is statutorily deemed to be correct for all purposes. Under these Circumstances the lower appellate Court was not justified in importing its own opinion in the matter. 11. The judgment of the court below shows that in arriving at the aforesaid view, it was considerably influenced by the decision in Dattappa v. Secretary Municipal Committee Buldana AIR 1951 Nag 191. That was a single judge decision. The attention of the Court below was apparently not invited to the Division Bench decision of that very Court in AIR 1952 83 (Nagpur) in which the decision of Dattappa (Cited above) was considered and overruled. Dealing with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in that case their Lordships observed as follows: The authority on which the learned Judge relies deals with an alteration in the acidity of the milk. It is common knowledge that there is a bacterial action if milk is left exposed for any length of time and that that does affect a change in the chemical composition of some of the elements and produces lactic acid. But there is nothing to indicate that the proportion of the fat content and of the other solids excluding fat is altered by reason of this change. The learned Judge has reached this conclusion on his own. In the absence of any authority and considering the fact that the Act lays the burden on the accused, we are unable to reach such a conclusion. 12. With these observations we respectfully wish to associate ourselves. It follows therefore that there is no reason to suppose that as a result of the delay of one month and five days, the proportion of the fat content and of the other solids excluding fat would be altered or that the water contents would be increased. The second reason given by the lower appellate Court has also therefore to be rejected. 13. The second reason given by the lower appellate Court has also therefore to be rejected. 13. So far as the third reason of the lower appellate Court is concerned it appears to be based on ignorance of the contents of the notes which the Food Inspector prepared on the spot (Ex. P3). The said notes clearly show that 15 drops of formalin were added to 3 paos, or 24 ozs. of milk Under Rule 21 one drop of formalin for every oz. of milk is permitted. It is thus clear that the quantity of formalin which was added to the sample was less than prescribed by the relevant rule. The lower appellate Court therefore erred in holding that there was nothing to show as to what quantity of formalin was added to the sample. Accordingly the third reason for ordering the acquittal of the Respondent also fails. 14. The report of the Public Analyst shows that non fatty solids were 5 per cent. Under the relevant Rule framed under the Act they should have been 8.5 per cent. The quantity of non fatty solids was therefore grossly short of the quantity insisted upon bylaw. Similarly the report shows that the sample consisted of 41 per cent added water. This was also against the law. On this finding the guilt of the Respondent for the contravention of Section 7/16 of the Act stands fully established. The next question which has to be specific is as to the quantum of the sentence which should be imposed upon the Respondent. On this question we are in complete agreement with the learned Magistrate that the Circumstances of the case call for deterrent punishment. As stated above the learned Magistrate awarded to the Respondent a sentence of 6 months RI and a fine of Rs. 60/- in default to two months further RI. In our opinion the said sentence is extremely appropriate to the occasion and we order accordingly. 15. The result therefore is that we set aside the order of acquittal and convict and sentence the Respondent u/s 16(1) of the Act for the contravention of Section 7(1) of the Act, to six months RI and a fine of Rs. 60/- in default to two months further RI. The Respondent shall surrender forthwith and serve out the sentence imposed upon him and also pay up the fine.