K. C. AGARWAL, J. This revision is directed against judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant against his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to six months rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on January, 24,1970 at about 8-30 a. m. the accused applicant was carrying milk in 3 cans where the Food Inspector purchased certain quantity of milk on payment of money to the applicant and thereafter divided the milk into three parts and sent one of them to Public Analyst who reported that the milk was adulterated inasmuch as the sample sent to him was deficient in fats by 30 per cent and non fatty solids by 12 per cent. Subsequently after obtaining the sanction of the District Medical Officer of Health the applicant was prosecuted and a charge-sheet was submitted against him. 3. The applicant pleaded not guilty and alleged that Jaipal Singh, Food Inspector did not purchase any milk from him on 24th January, 1970. It was alleged by the applicant that the Food Inspector caught hold of the applicant in the court and got his thumb-impression made on the recovery memo on that date in the court premises under threat and coercion. 4. Relying on the statement of the Food Inspector and the report of the Public Analyst the court below held that the applicant was guilty of the offences under Section 16 (1) (a) (3) read with Section 3 and Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In that view of the matter applicant was awarded the sentences already indicated above. Aggrieved by this judgment the present revision has been filed in this Court. 5. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant was that the applicant was not the same Noor Hasan from whom the sample was taken by the Food Inspector on 24-1-1970 and, therefore, the prosecution of the applicant was unjustified and that his conviction is liable to be set aside. To support his case the applicant had produced Dinu (D. W. 1) and Ashraf v. Ali (D. W. 2 ). After looking into the evidence given by the parties on this controversy the court below found that admittedly Ext. To support his case the applicant had produced Dinu (D. W. 1) and Ashraf v. Ali (D. W. 2 ). After looking into the evidence given by the parties on this controversy the court below found that admittedly Ext. Ka 1, which is this recovery memo bears the thumb-impression of Noor Hasan. This thumb impression of Noor Hasan and the statements of the witnesses produced by the prosecution establish that the sample of milk was obtained by Jaipal singh (P. W. I) from the applicant on January 24, 1970. The courts below have given cogent reasons for not accepting the statements of Dinu (D. W. I) and Ashraf Ali (P. W. 2 ). There are not only contradictions in the statements of these witnesses but otherwise also they are not worthy of reliance. According to the case of the applicant he was arrested in the court room and that his thumb-impression was obtained in the court premises. This part of the story of the applicant was improbable and was rightly discarded by the two courts below. Moreover, as stated above the prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that the sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector from the applicant on 24th January, 1970. The finding recorded by the two courts below on this controversy is one of fact and, therefore, the same has to be accepted. As stated above. I do not find any error which might have been committed by the two courts below in arriving at that finding. 6. The second argument advanced on behalf of the applicant was that Jaipal Singh (P. W. 1) who, purchased the sample from the applicant on 24th January, 1970 way not the Food Inspector appointed for the area where the sample was obtained by him and, therefore, the prosecution being based on the charge-sheet submitted by the said Food Inspector was liable to be quashed. Learned counsel drew my attention to Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in support of his proposition and argued that only that Food Inspector could submit the charge-sheet who had been appointed as such for that an a where the sample of the milk was allegedly obtained. The submission made is not correct. In the examination-in-chief Jaipal Singh has very clearly stated that the place where the milk was taken by him from the applicant is situated in his jurisdiction. The submission made is not correct. In the examination-in-chief Jaipal Singh has very clearly stated that the place where the milk was taken by him from the applicant is situated in his jurisdiction. In the cross-examination certain question was put to him as to whether village Saadpur was within his jurisdiction at the time when the milk was purchased by him. Denying the aforesaid suggestion he stated that the said village did not lie within his jurisdiction at that time. The question, however, was whether the place where the applicant was asked to give the sample was one which was within the jurisdiction of the Food Inspector or not. There is a very clear statement of Jaipal Singh (P. W. 1) on that point. It does not leave any room for doubt that the Food Inspector Jaipal Singh was competent to obtain the sample and to submit the charge-sheet as well. It is worthy of being noted that the applicant did not take up this plea either at the trial stage or in appeal. 7. The third submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, was that under sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Food Inspector was required to produce before the Magistrate concerned one of the phials retained by him and as he failed to do so the whole of the prosecution failed and that the applicant could not be convicted. The submission made is devoid of merits. Subsection (4) of Section 11 no doubt requires an article of food seized under sub-section (4) of Section 10 to be produced before the Magistrate as soon as possible. The first proviso to this subsection further says that in case any article of which samples have been sent to the Public Analyst for analysis may be produced on or after the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst. In the instant case it appears that the Food inspector did not produce the phial of milk which had been retained by him after dividing the milk purchased by him into three parts. In the instant case it appears that the Food inspector did not produce the phial of milk which had been retained by him after dividing the milk purchased by him into three parts. The defect of having not produced the same does not, however, render the prosecution of the applicant illegal It appears to me that the object of sub-section (4) of Section 11 is to provide an opportunity to the applicant to get the phial retained by the Food Inspector examined by the Central Food Laboratory under subsection (2) of Section 13 if an occasion for the said purpose arises. As a matter of fact the question of getting a phial examined by the Central Food Laboratory can arise in a case where the accused is dissatisfied with the report of the Public Analyst and wants to challenge the same. In the instant case, the applicant admittedly did rot make any application at any stage of the proceeding before the Magistrate either for summoning the phial from the Food Inspector or for sending the same to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for further examination. In these circumstances the mere omission of the Food Inspector to produce the phial retained by him does not make the prosecution of the applicant illegal. It would of course have been better if the Food Inspector would have filed the same at his own without waiting for an application to be filed for that purpose by the accused. But as to my mind the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 11 cannot be read as meaning that its non-compliance would render the prosecution illegal, therefore, I am not prepared to uphold the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on a case of this court reported in Chintamani v. State (1964 All. L. J. 893. 1 ). This was, however, a case where an application was made by the accused to the court that the phial retained by the Food Inspector be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for test and as the phial was not produced by the Food Inspector despite the application filed by the accused of that case, the Court held that the accused was deprived of the right of appeal conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As already noted, since such a contingency did not arise in the instant case the question of holding the conviction of the applicant to be illegal does not arise. 8. In the result the revision fails and is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the applicant Noor Hasan under Section 7/16, of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are confirmed. He is on bail. He will surrender to his bail bonds failing which he shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail to serve out the remaining period of his sentence. His bail bonds are discharged. The stay order dated 26-10-1972 is vacated. .