JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine the applicant has been ordered to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months. His conviction ' and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Nainital. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order and the record of the case. 3. According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector had purchased a sample of mixed cow and buffalo milk at 8 a.m. on 23rd April, 1977, which the applicant was carrying for sale near Police Station, Tallital, in the city of Nainital, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that it was deficient in fat contents by 2% and in non-fatty solids by about 19%. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case, have come to the conclusion that the guilt of the applicant has been satisfactorily established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact concurrently recorded by the subordinate courts to warrant interference in revision. 4. It was argued in the court below that an application has been moved on behalf of the applicant on 15-7-1978 under Section 13(2) of the Act for sending the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta but that has been wrongly rejected. This point has been considered by the Sessions Judge. It appears that the report of the analysis was sent to the accused applicant. Under the Amended Act he is required to file an application for re-analysis within ten days of the receipt of the report from the Public Analyst. In the instant case the accused appeared on 4-3-1978 after warrants had been issued against him and process has also been issued declaring the accused-applicant an absconder. The accused appeared on 4th March, 1978. In these circumstances, the accused has himself to be blamed for the belated application filed by him. The court below was correct in rejecting the same. 5. The accused appeared on 4th March, 1978. In these circumstances, the accused has himself to be blamed for the belated application filed by him. The court below was correct in rejecting the same. 5. It was also argued before the court below that the provisions of & Section 10(7) of the Act have not been complied with. From the statement of the Food Inspector it appears that he had called persons to witness the taking of the sample but they had refused. Thus the provisions of Section 10(7) were also complied with. 6. On the question of sentence I am unable to give any relief to the applicant. The deficiency has been found in fat contents to the extent of 2% and in non-fatty solids by 19%. The incident has taken place after the enforcement of Act 34 of 1976. The minimum sentence provided under the Act is six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000 which has been awarded to the accused applicant. 7. Thus there is no merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him. The interim order passed by the Court on 13th September, 1979 staying realisation of fine is hereby vacated.