Short Note : 1. This revision is directed against the conviction of the applicant for the offence under section 7 (1) read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentence of 6 months’ R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000 recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Dewes, in Cr. Appeal No. 132 of 75. Held : It is not disputed that on the date when the Food Inspector visited the shop of the applicant the latter was carrying on the Kirana shop in which ground-nut oil was kept for sale. From the evidence of Durgaprasad Nath (P.W.1), Food Inspector, it is proved that he had purchased 375 gms. of ground-nut oil from the applicant on payment of Rs. 3.37 p. divided it in three equal parts, put them in three separate bottles and sealed them in the presence of the applicant and the Panch witnesses. The Panch witness Ahmed Noor (P.W.2) has turned hostile. It appears, that he deliberately wanted to suppress the facts from the Court. He has stated that the Food Inspector had taken his thumb impressions on certain papers, but the sample of the groundnut oil was not taken in his presence. It is difficult to believe that the Panch witness blindly put his thumb mark on the memorandum Ex. P-4. The Food Inspector has deposed that he had given the notice to the applicant ride Ex. P-2 at the time of purchasing the sample ground-nut oil and had obtained the receipt Ex. P-3 from the applicant. He has also deposed that the memorandum Ex. P-4 was prepared by him which was signed by the applicant. There is, therefore no ground to disbelieve the evidence of the Food Inspector and the documentary evidence mentioned above. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant could not suggest in what manner the applicant was prejudiced on account of the delay about 6 months in filing the challan from the date of the taking of the sample ground-nut oil. After appearing before the trial Court the applicant could have taken steps under section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to get one of the parts of the sample ground nut oil examined by the Director of Central Food Laboratory with a view to supersede the report of the Public Analyst. After appearing before the trial Court the applicant could have taken steps under section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to get one of the parts of the sample ground nut oil examined by the Director of Central Food Laboratory with a view to supersede the report of the Public Analyst. The applicant could have even taken steps to call the Public Analyst for the purposes of cross-examination in order to know whether the sample ground-nut oil was fit for analysis at the time when it was sent to the laboratory. The Public Analyst in his report Ex. P-6 has certified that the sample was in a fit condition for analysis. Under these circumstances the applicant cannot get any benefit on account of the fact that the complaint was filed after a delay of six months. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant nextly contended that it is not proved that the applicant had the requisite qualifications for being appointed as Food Inspector as prescribed by rule 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. It may be noted that no question was put on behalf of the applicant in the cross-examination of the Food Inspector Durgaprasad Nath (P.W.1) to suggest that he did not possess anyone of the requisite qualifications under rule 8. When the applicant did not challenge the appointment of the Food Inspector on the ground that he had no requisite qualifications be cannot be allowed to contend that the Food Inspector did not possess the qualifications which were necessary for his appointment as a Food Inspector. I, therefore, hold that Durgaprasad Nath (P.W.1) was a duly appointed Food Inspector competent to perform his duties under rule 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and hence the taking of the sample from the applicant by him had the authority of law. 4. The Public Analyst in his affidavit, which is filed in this Court on 17-3-78 has stated that he was appointed by the Government of M.P., Public Health Department, vide Order No. 6087/2202/XVII. M.I. dated 9-7-71 and since then he was posted at Indore. 5. The Public Analyst gave the report with respect to the sample groundnut oil on 16-12-74. It is thus clear that he had gained the experience of three years in the analysis of food in the laboratory at Indore. 6. M.I. dated 9-7-71 and since then he was posted at Indore. 5. The Public Analyst gave the report with respect to the sample groundnut oil on 16-12-74. It is thus clear that he had gained the experience of three years in the analysis of food in the laboratory at Indore. 6. The basic idea in prescribing the qualifications of a person on a post like that of a Public Analyst is that he should be quite efficient to discharge his duties because on the basis of his report the personal liberty of a citizen, accused of an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is likely to be affected. Revision dismissed.