JUDGMENT D.D. Seth, J. - The facts of this revision are that on May 19, 1964 at about 5.45 a.m. Food Inspector Sri M. D. Misra in the service of the Mahapalika, Allahabad was going on his usual rounds with his peons when he found the applicant selling milk in front of 22 Himmat-ganj, Allahabad. Sri M. D. Misra purchased three paos of milk on payment of 47 Paisa. It was further the prosecution case that the Food Inspector sealed the three paos of milk in the presence of the applicant and served him with a notice and also gave him one sealed phial. One of the sealed phials retained by the Food Inspector was sent to the Pubic Analyst Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow who submitted his report Ex. Ka. 3 which showed that the sample was not of the prescribed standard being deficient in fatty and non-fatty contents. The Nagar Swasthya Adhikari then sanctioned the prosecution of the applicant. 2. The applicant pleaded not guilty and according to him he was locked in Kotwali and the sample of milk was taken there. 3. In order to prove the prosecution case the prosecution examined three witness, namely P.W. 1 Sri M. D. Misra Food Inspector, P.W. 2 Wahid Ahmad Ansari and P.W. 3 Shambhu. 4. Believing the prosecution case the learned Special Magistrate 1st Class, Allahabad convicted the applicant under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced the applicant to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1500/- or in default to three months' further rigorous imprisonment. Against his conviction the applicant went up in appeal which was dismissed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Allahabad on July 19, 1966. 5. I have heard Sri J. N. Chaturvedi learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri M. M. Chaturvedi appearing for the State. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there was no compliance of subsection (7) of Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act inasmuch as the Food Inspector did not get one or more persons to be present at the time when the sample was taken and did not get the signatures of one or more person on the recovery memo. Section 10; of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act deals with powers of Food Inspectors and authorises him to take samples of any article of food from any person selling such article and to send the same for analysis to the Public Analyst. Subsection (7) of Section 10/ of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act reads thus: "Where the food inspector takes any action under cl. (1) of sub-section (1), sub-section (2), sub-section (4) or sub-section (6), he 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." 6. This provision is mandatory and, therefore, the Food Inspector had no other option but to get the recovery memo signed by one or more persons present at the time when the sample was taken. The explanation given by the Food Inspector that the members of the public who happened to be passersby were not ready to be witnesses does not appeal to me. It, therefore, follows that there was no compliance of sub-section (7) of Section 10 and the entire proceedings on that account were bad in law. 7. For the reasons mentioned above I allow this revision and set aside the conviction of the applicant under Section 16(1) (a) (ii) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as also the sentence imposed on the applicant under that section. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the applicant. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.