JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine he has been ordered to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months. In appeal his conviction has been maintained by the Sessions Judge, Nainital, but the sentence has been reduced to three months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500. Hence this revision. 2. According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector had purchased a sample of ghee from the shop of the applicant at 5.30 P.M. on 31st July, 1977 on payment of its price, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials, which was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, disclosed that the sample was adulterated, inasmuch as it did not conform to the standard prescribed under the rules. The report of the analysis disclosed that it contained Vanaspati oil in small quantity. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted. Both the Courts below have held the accused-applicant guilty. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded concurrently by the subordinate Courts to warrant interference in revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant. He has submitted that the spoon with which the ghee was taken out, was taken by the Food Inspector from some neighbouring shop. This is not correct. Learned counsel has showed me the statement of the Food Inspector that it was the accused himself, who had got the spoon from the neighbouring shop. It is further apparent that the spoon was clean and did not have any oil stuck to it. Thus no error was committed by the Food Inspector in taking out the sample of ghee with the spoon which he filled in separate phials. One of which was examined subsequently by the Public Analyst. 4. Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that there has been violation of Section 10(7) of the P.F.A. Act. It is clear from the statement of the Food Inspector that the persons of neighbourhood did not want to give evidence, consequently he did not summon them. This is sufficient compliance of law. 4. Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that there has been violation of Section 10(7) of the P.F.A. Act. It is clear from the statement of the Food Inspector that the persons of neighbourhood did not want to give evidence, consequently he did not summon them. This is sufficient compliance of law. Even otherwise, the result of non-compliance of Section 10(7) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act would be that the Food Inspector stands the risk of his uncorroborated testimony being rejected. I have seen the statement of the Food Inspector placed by the learned counsel for the applicant. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to indicate that he has any animus or any other sufficient reason to falsely implicate the accused-applicant. I find no cause for rejecting his testimony with regard to the taking of the sample from the shop of the applicant. 5. Lastly, the applicants counsel has urged that the sentence should be reduced. The Court below has already reduced the sentence. I do not find any extenuating circumstance for reducing the sentence any further. 6. There is no merit in this revision which is hereby rejected. The applicant is on bail. He should be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment.