JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This revision is directed against the judgement dated 31st March, 1978 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur dismissing the appeal that was filed by the present applicant against his conviction and sentence under section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. On 20th of March, at about 5.30 P. M. Sri G.N. Gairola, Chief Sanitary Inspector, Meerut Division, found the applicant selling milk on Station Road, Hardwar. On inquiry, applicant informed that the milk in his possession was toned milk. The Food Inspector collected a sample out of that milk. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who reported it to be adulterated. A complaint was, therefore, filed for the prosecution of the applicant. 3. The defence set up by the applicant was that the milk, out of which the sample was collected was not toned milk but was skimmed milk and that he had told inspector about it at the time the sample was collected. The applicant further stated that the milk was not meant for sale but was being carried by him for his ailing child. The trial court, however, did not accept the plea that was set up by the applicant and, convicting him of the offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention Food Adulteration Act, sentenced him to six months R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the applicant filed an appeal in the court of sessions which resulted in dismissal and hence this revision. 4. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant before me was that the applicant had told the food inspector, when the sample was collected, that it was skimmed milk and that, if the standard prescribed for skimmed milk is applied to the sample in question, it was not adulterated. 5. The question that, therefore, arises for consideration in the present case is whether the milk out of which the sample was collected was skimmed milk and whether the applicant had informed the food inspector about it when the latter collected the sample. 6. 5. The question that, therefore, arises for consideration in the present case is whether the milk out of which the sample was collected was skimmed milk and whether the applicant had informed the food inspector about it when the latter collected the sample. 6. It does not appear from the record that a copy of the report of the public analyst was sent to the applicant by registered post, as was required under Rule 9-J. The earliest occasion therefore on which the applicant could raise the plea that milk, out of which the sample was collected, was skimmed milk, was when he was examined for the first time as an accused in the case. On a persual of the record, I find that the applicant was examined for the first time on 8th of September, 1974 and on that very date, he stated in clear terms that the milk out of which the sample was collected was skimmed milk and that he informed the food inspector about it. Not only this, it was also put to G.N. Gairola, Food Inspector (P. W. 1) in cross-examination that the applicant had told him at the time of collection of the sample that the milk in the applicants possession was skimmed milk. It is true that the food inspector denied that suggestion. According to the statement made by the Food Inspector, the applicant told at the time of the collection of the sample that the milk in the possession of the applicant was toned milk. The least that can, therefore, be inferred even on the statement made by the Food Inspector is that the applicant did give some information to the Food Inspector at the time of collection of the milk about the nature thereof. The applicant is an illiterate person and it does not appear probable that he would have used the words toned milk while giving the information to the Food inspector about the nature of the milk in his possession. Many literate persons even would not know as to what toned milk is. The food inspector stated in cross-examination that by toned milk he understood the milk out of which some fat is extracted. Many literate persons even would not know as to what toned milk is. The food inspector stated in cross-examination that by toned milk he understood the milk out of which some fat is extracted. The probability, therefore, is that at the time of the collection of the sample the applicant told the food inspector that it was separated milk and the food inspector described toned milk in the papers prepared by him. It may be added that the proforma of the notice and the receipt are in Hindi, the applicant has also signed those papers in Hindi, but the entries therein were made by the Food Inspector in English. Under the circumstances even if the applicant knew some Hindi he could not know that the milk was described in the notice and the receipt as toned milk. And even if he knew that it was described as toned milk, not being conversant with English, he may have believed that it was the English equivalent for the words separated milk. 7. Some stress was laid by the learned counsel for the State on the fact that the prosecution examined two witnesses, namely, G.N. Gairola, Food Inspector as (P.W.1.) and Om Prakash (P.W.2) and both of them stated that, at the time of collection of the sample, the applicant had informed the Food Inspector that the milk in his possession was toned milk. I have, however, already stated that it is not probable that if the applicant would have used the expression toned milk while informining Food Inspector out the nature of the milk in his possession. That apart, sub-section 7 of section 10 requires that when the food inspector collects any sample he shall collect one or more persons to be present at that time. The expression one or more persons used in sub-section (7) of section 10 of the Act would mean one or more independent persons. In cases after cases of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act that have come before me during last few days, I have found that no effort was made in any case to pick up any independent person. The prosecution contented itself by examining one food inspector and a sanitary supervisor (a subordinate of the sanitary inspector), or by examining two food inspectors. The prosecution contented itself by examining one food inspector and a sanitary supervisor (a subordinate of the sanitary inspector), or by examining two food inspectors. In all most every case, the food inspector resorted to the stock plea that he asked those present at the spot to be witness in the case but they refused to agree. This is what precisely pleaded in this case also. The prosecution examined only G.N. Gairola, Chief Sanitary Inspector, Food in support of the prosecution case. Both of them were together when they reached the place where the sample was collected. No person is picked up by the food inspector in compliance of sub-section (7) of section 10 of the Act. When questioned in that connection, Shri Gairola (P.W.1) stated that a number of persons had collected at the place; that he asked some of them to be witness in the case but they refused to agree. In order to test this statement, Gairola was questioned about the names of those persons who were present at the place of occurrence and to that Sri Gairolas reply was that they even refused to tell their names. According to the admission elicited in the cross-examination of Sri Gairola there was a dairy situated at a very short distance away and, according to the statement made by Om Prakash, Food Inspector (P.W.2) there were several houses situated nearby. In the first instance, it does not appear probable that even though a number of persons collected at the place of occurrence, there was not even a single person in that crowd who agreed to be a witness in the case or who disclosed his name. But even assuming that it was so, the Food Inspector could send for a person from the dairy or from any of the adjoining houses when he was preparing the relevant papers. It appears to me that there is a consistent effort on the part of the Food Inspector to circumvent the provision contained in sub-section 7 of section 10 of the Act by taking resort to the plea that none present at the place of occurrence agreed to be a witness in the case. Sub-section 7 of Section 10 has been incorporated in the Act to save people from harassment and to discourage uncalled for prosecutions. Sub-section 7 of Section 10 has been incorporated in the Act to save people from harassment and to discourage uncalled for prosecutions. The non-compliance of this provision would mean defeating the purpose for which sub-section 7 of section 10 has been enacted in the Act. I am, accordingly, not prepared to accept the statement made by G.N. Gairola, Food Inspector, (P.W. 1) and Om Prakash (P.W. 2) that even though a number of persons were present at the place where the sample was collected, none of them agreed to be a witness in the case. The fact that even though a number of persons were present but none of them was picked up to be a witness in the case would, therefore, be a circumstance against the prosecution. 8. In view of all the aforesaid circumstances, I hold that the milk out of which the sample was collected, was skimmed milk and the food inspector wrongly described it as toned milk in the papers prepared by him. 9. The question that next falls for consideration is whether the sample taken from the possession of the applicant can be adulterated if the standard prescribed for skimmed milk applied to it. The analysis of the sample as given ' by the public analyst is as follows :- Fat ... 0.2 per cent Non-fat solids ... 10.1 percent The standard prescribed for skimmed milk as contained in para A.11.01.11 of appendix B of Rules framed under the Act is as follows : Milk fat ... not more 0.05 per cent Milk solids non-fat ... less than 7 per cent Since fat found by the public analyst in the sample was not more than 0.5 per cent and the non-fat solids were more than 8.7 per cent, the sample cannot be held to be adulterated if the standard prescribed for skimmed milk is applied to it. 10. I, accordingly, hold that the sample collected out of the possession of the applicant was not adulterated and, the conviction recorded against him under section 7 read with section 16 of the Act cannot stand. 11. This revision is, accordingly, allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant are set aside. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. The bonds furnished by him shall stand discharged.