JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. The applicant has been convicted under Sections 7 (1) read with 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration. Act and sentenced to 6 months' R.I. and a fine of 'Rs. 1000/. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further 4 months' R.I. His conviction and sentence has been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Jhansi. Hence this revision. I have heard Sri S.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and the State counsel at a considerable length and have also perused the record of the case carefully. According to the prosecution case, the Food Inspector Sri M.M. Saxena had purchased a sample of Cow Milk on payment of Rs. 1.50 from the shop of the applicant Munni Lal, after serving the requisite notice and disclosing his identity. The milk was divided equally in three phials, 18 drops of formline were added in each of the phials, and the sample phials were properly corked and labeled. One sample phial was given to the applicant and of the other two sample phials, one was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample was deficient in fat contents by 9 per cent and in nonfatty solids by 31 per cent. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. The accused denied the sale of milk by him. His case was that he had kept 14 liters milk with water to clean the Chasni far the Sweetmeat. He admitted having signed the notice (Ex. Ka1) and the receipt Ex. Ka2 but alleged that he was forced to do so. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on the record, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the sample of Cow Milk purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant was adulterated. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the courts below to warrant interference in the revision. Learned counsel for the applicant has raised a few questions which I shall deal forthwith. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the courts below to warrant interference in the revision. Learned counsel for the applicant has raised a few questions which I shall deal forthwith. He urges that an application was filed by the accused on February 18, 1977 praying that the Food Inspector be directed to produce the third sample phial in his possession, in court and the same be sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This application was rejected by the Magistrate. As such his valuable right to get the sample analysed has been infringed, which has caused grave prejudice to the applicant and his trial is, therefore, legally vitiated. The sample in question has been brought by the Food Inspector on July 16, 1975. The report of the Public Analyst is dated August 18, 1975. The application, aforesaid, was filed about one and half years later on February 18, 1977. The MunsifMagistrate rejected this application on the ground that considerable time has elapsed and by that date the sample must have decomposed. I must, at the outset observe that the Magistrate was in error, when he rejected the application on the ground that the sample must have decomposed. This was not his function. I have already held earlier in a decision reported in.........................that there is no limitation prescribed for the accused to demand the sending of the sample for analysis by the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. It can be done at any stage prior to the final decision of the case. If the application is belated and the sample gets decomposed as a result of the delay, it is for the public analyst to report that the sample had become incapable of analysis due to its decomposition In those circumstances the accused is himself to be blamed for the belated application and it would not be open to him to urge that the rights granted to him under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act have been infringed. The Magistrate therefore, committed an error in rejecting this application on the ground that it was belated and the sample must have decomposed by that stage. The Magistrate therefore, committed an error in rejecting this application on the ground that it was belated and the sample must have decomposed by that stage. But even though the reasons given by the Magistrate for rejecting the application was erroneous, yet I am of the opinion that the application dated February 18, 1977 filed under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the applicant was not maintainable in law, and therefore, it should have been rejected, though for different reasons. The case of the prosecution is that the Food Inspector purchased a sample of milk on payment of Rs. 1.50. The receipt Ex. Ka2, was duly signed by the accusedapplicant and the Food Inspector himself. It has been proved by him. The accused also has admitted his signature, though the explanation given by him which is not corroborated by any evidence, is to the effect that he has been forced to sign. I have no reason to disbelieve the Food Inspector. Both the courts below have accepted this testimony. I am therefore, clearly of the view that it has been conclusively established that a sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector and out of the three phials which were prepared on the spot, one sample phial was given to the applicant. The relevant portion of Section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act runs as follows: Section 11 "When a Food Inspector takes a sample of food for analysis, he shall (a) give notice in writing the" and there, of his intention to have it so analysed, to the person from whom he has taken the sample...... (c) (i) deliver one of the parts to the person from whom the sample has been taken; (ii) send another part for analysis to the public analyst, and (iii) retain the third part for production in case any legal proceedings are taken or for analysis by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under subsection (2) of Section 13, as the case may be." According to the procedure prescribed above the sample phial is given to the accused vendor, the second sample phial is sent to the Public Analyst for examination and the third sample phial is retained by the Food Inspector for production in the event of legal proceedings being undertaken or for analysis by the Director, Central Food Laboratory. Under Section 13 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Public Analyst delivers his report of analysis of the sample of food in the prescribed form to the Food Inspector. The relevant portion of Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act runs as follows. Section 13 (2) "After the institution of a prosecution under this Act, the accused vendor or the complainant may on payment of the prescribed fee, make an application to the court for sending the part of the sample mentioned in subclause (i) or subclause (iii) of clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 11 to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for a certificate, and..........the court........may then despatch the part of the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, who shall thereupon send a certificate to the court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the sample, specifying the result of his analysis," Reading relevant portions of Sections 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, quoted above, together, it is apparent that both the accused as well as the complainant, have been given a right to apply to the court for sending the sample for analysis by the Director Central Food Laboratory. Two samples are contemplated in these sections. One is that sample which is delivered to the accused under Section 11 (1) (c) (i) and the second is the sample which is retained by the Food Inspector under Section 11(1) (c) (iii) of the Act. Thus each of the parties, namely the accused and the Food Inspector, has a sample in their possession which can be availed of by them in case either party is dissatisfied with the report of the Public Analyst. In these circumstances, it would be reasonable to infer that the legislature by putting each of the two parties viz. the accused and the complainant, in possession of a sample phial, intended that if circumstances demanded they could exercise their rights to have the samples in their possession sent for a further analysis by the Director Central Food Laboratory. To my mind, it would be very unreasonable to hold that each of the parties viz. the complainant and the accused, have a right to get any of these two samples in the possession of the other, sent for analysis. To my mind, it would be very unreasonable to hold that each of the parties viz. the complainant and the accused, have a right to get any of these two samples in the possession of the other, sent for analysis. To elaborate further, can the complainant apply to the court with a request that the sample in possession of the accused be sent for analysis to the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta? Cannot in these circumstances the accused take up a plea that he cannot legally be compelled to give evidence against himself, such a direction by the court would amount to testimonial compulsion prohibited by Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, which provides that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself as held by brother Hari Swaroop, J. in Sabbir Ahmad v. State of U.P. (1976 A.C.C. 69.). Therefore, if the complainant has no right to demand that the sample phial of the accused be sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, then a fortiorari the accused cannot also have a right to seek a direction from the court to compel the Food Inspector to produce his sample phial for being sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. Both, the complainant as well as the accused, are given phials which are not to be dealt with as children's toys, but which were intended by the legislature to be preserved for analysis in the event of proceedings being initiated in a court of law. In my opinion, therefore, the application filed on behalf of the accused on February 18, 1977, demanding the Food Inspector to produce the sample phial in the court for being sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, was not maintainable. If the applicant desired, he could make an application to the court for sending the sample phial in his possession for analysis. If such an application had been made, then the Magistrate would have had no other alternative but to allow it and to direct the sample to be sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, subject of course to the payment of prescribed fee. If such an application had been made, then the Magistrate would have had no other alternative but to allow it and to direct the sample to be sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, subject of course to the payment of prescribed fee. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram (A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 970), Justice Hidayatullah, as he then was, and Justice V. Bhargava, have already explained the rights of the accused to get his sample tested by the Director of Central Food Laboratory under Section 13 (2) (5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the following terms, "When a valuable right is conferred by Section 3 (2) of the Act on the vendor to have the sample given to him analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, it is to be expected that the prosecution will proceed in such a manner that that right will not be denied to him........ Obviously the right has been given to the vendor in order that, for his satisfaction and proper defence, he should be able to have the sample kept in his charge analysed by a greater expert whose certificate is to be accepted by Court as conclusive evidence. In a case where there is denial of this right on account of the deliberate conduct of the prosecution..........It would not be proper to uphold his conviction on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst." In view of the above observation of the Supreme Court I do not find any merit in this submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. However, I would like to deal with some cases that have been cited by the applicant's counsel. In Bhagumndass v. State ( A.I.R. 1962 Punj. 419.), Chief Justice D. Falshaw was of the view that the sample to be given to the accused is solely for his own protection and obviously it is intended to enable him to have it analysed privately for the purpose of producing evidence at the trial, if necessary to contradict the report of the Public Analyst. I have already discussed above Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which gives the accused a right to have his sample in his possession, tested not through private agency but by applying to the court for sending it to the Director Central Food Laboratory for his certificate. I have already discussed above Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which gives the accused a right to have his sample in his possession, tested not through private agency but by applying to the court for sending it to the Director Central Food Laboratory for his certificate. The certificate of the Director is final and supersedes the report of the Public Analyst. In Modi Dahyabhai Ambalal and another v. Jayanli Lal C. Shah and another (1968 Cr.L.J. 829.) Mr. Justice Shelat has held as follows: "The effect of Section 11 (1) (c) and Section 13 (1) and (2) of the Act read together is that a right is given both to the accused and the complainant to make an application to the court for sending a part of the sample to the Dir. of Central Food Laboratory for obtaining a certificate........The legislature has clearly intended to have one additional sample made out from any such food item purchased by the complainant under the Act and it has to be retained by the complainant. That retention is for a purpose viz. that if a complaint is to be lodged, he has to make it available to the Court for enabling it to send to Director for analysis, if any application is received from either side. That can be used not necessarily for the complainant, but even by the accused in the case." I respectfully disagree with the view of the Gujrat High Court for reasons, which I have already indicated above and which are supported by the decision of the Supreme Court. The sample phial in the possession of the complainant can be used by the complainant only. If he is dissatisfied with the report of the Public Analyst, he can produce the phial in court and make a prayer for the same being sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. The accused can not utilize that phial for his own purpose. If he is dissatisfied with the report of the Public Analyst, he can produce the phial in court and make a prayer for the same being sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. The accused can not utilize that phial for his own purpose. In 1975; All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal page 422, Justice Krishnaswami Reddy of the Madras High Court also was of the view: "Either the part of the sample given to the vendor or the part retained by the Food Inspector and kept in custody of the court can be sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory at the instance of the accused........when the accused choses to send the sample retained by the Food Inspector, it can not be refused......If for some reason the sample retained by the Food Inspector is not made available and hence the court cannot comply with the request of the accused, it must be deemed that the valuable right conferred on the accused was deprived of, by the prosecution." I respectfully disagree with this view of the Madras High Court also. As has been observed by the Supreme Court the accused has no right to demand that the sample in the possession of the Food Inspector be made available and sent for analysis. Since he is also supplied with the sample phial it is open to him to exercise his right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by getting his own sample sent for analysis. In Karsandas G. Ravaliya v. The State of Maharashtra (1975 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration journal paga 640) Justice Mamat proceeded upon the basis that it was necessary for the complainant to produce the third sample bottle before the trial Magistrate along with his complaint or soon thereafter under Section 11(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In that case when the accused made an application for sending the sample bottle in the possession of the Food Inspector to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, the plea was taken that the same had been destroyed in the flood. His lordship was of the opinion that this amounted to a denial of the valuable rights of the applicant. In that case when the accused made an application for sending the sample bottle in the possession of the Food Inspector to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, the plea was taken that the same had been destroyed in the flood. His lordship was of the opinion that this amounted to a denial of the valuable rights of the applicant. Section 11(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act runs as follows: An article of Food seized under Section 4 of Section 10, shall be produced before a Magistrate as soon as possible. "Under Section 10(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, if any article intended for food appears to any food. Inspector to be adulterated or misbranded, he may seize and carry away or keep in the safe custody of the vendor such article in order that it may be dealt with as hereinafter provided." This refers to the seizure of the article and production in court. Section 11 on the other hand refers not to the seizure of the article but to the taking of a sample of an article of food for analysis by the Food Inspector. When such a sample is taken, it has to be retained by the Food Inspector for production in case any legal proceeding is undertaken under Section 11 (1) (c) (iii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Such a sample would be produced before the Magistrate by the Food Inspector only when an application under Section 13 (2) of the Act is made by him to the court for sending this third sample phial to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. For these reasons I do not agree with the view expressed by the Bombay High Court. In my opinion, the law is very clear and admits of no doubt, that) the time of taking of a sample by the Food Inspector, has to v be divided into 3 parts. For the protection of the citizen, he is delivered one part. For the satisfaction of the State, the Food Inspector retains one part and for analysis one part is sent to the Public Analyst. Either party can disagree with the report of the Public Analyst. Each party has a sample in his possession which can be utilized by him for being sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. Either party can disagree with the report of the Public Analyst. Each party has a sample in his possession which can be utilized by him for being sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. Another submission made by the applicant's counsel is that the sanction is vitiated, inasmuch as the Sanctioning Authority has not applied his mind to the facts of the case. I have carefully perused the order passed by the Medical Officer of Health Jhansi Municipal Board granting consent for prosecution. It has been duly signed and dated by him. It has been mentioned therein that, he has perused the relevant papers in connection with the sanction. The Food Inspector has stated that he had dispatched the relevant papers to the Sanctioning Authority. Merely because the blanks have been written out by some clerk in the office of the Medical Officer of Health, is no ground for discarding the sanction. It is not an unusual practice that the officer dictates the orders, which are written out by the staff. I have no reason to presume that the blanks were filed in by the clerk in the office without the knowledge and direction of the Sanctioning Authority and that the Sanctioning Authority appended his signature blindly without applying his mind. I do not find any merit in this submission. On the question of sentence also, I am unable to interfere, since the adulteration in the instant case was found both in fat contents and nonfatty solids. Adulteration of milk is becoming a very common feature of the day. The accused cannot be allowed to play with the health of the citizens and to gain financial advantage at their cost. I do not find any extenuating circumstance for reducing the sentence. 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. The interim order passed by this Court on February 27, 1978 is hereby vacated.