JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - Revisionist Mahmood has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. 2. According to the prosecution the revisionist was found selling adulterated buffalo milk on 5-11-1977 at about 9 A.M. at Cane Centre. Garina, Police Station Howana and a sample was taken by the Food Inspector. Vide the Public Analyst's report the sample was found to have 7.5 per cent fat content as against the prescribed 6 per cent and non-fatty solid content 8.3 per cent as against the prescribed 9 per cent. Thus there was an excess of 1.5 per cent in the fat content and a shortage of .7 per cent in the non-fatty solid content. Pending trial the sample was also sent to the Central Food Laboratory. According to their report the fat content came to be 7.7 per cent and the non-fatty solid content to be 8.5 per cent. Thus on this report the fat content excess increased to 1.7 per cent while the non-fatty solid content deficiency was reduced to .5 per cent. The courts below have found the prosecution case proved and convicted and sentenced the revisionist. 3. Two points were pressed in revision. Firstly the Food Inspector did not comply with section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The pertinent facts in this respect are these. The notice in form 6 and the receipt for the price of the sample bear the signatures of Dharam Pal Singh and Prem Chandra Kulshresth as witnesses. The Food Inspector spoke of obtaining the signatures of two witnesses. He admitted during the cross-examination that both these persons were attached to the Primary Health Centre, Mawana, where he was posted as Food Inspector. Dharam Pal Singh was a vaccinator while P.C. Kulshresth was a T.H.E. (T. Head Educator). He admitted that Kulshresth had gone with him but Dharam Pal Singh met him on the spot. The accused's case was that his milk was checked but it was not for sale and he was taking it to the dairy. Dharam Pal Singh was a vaccinator while P.C. Kulshresth was a T.H.E. (T. Head Educator). He admitted that Kulshresth had gone with him but Dharam Pal Singh met him on the spot. The accused's case was that his milk was checked but it was not for sale and he was taking it to the dairy. The learned counsel contends that as both the witnesses were attached to the Primary Health Centre to which the Food Inspector was attached, they cannot be regarded independent and there was, therefore, a failure to call independent witnesses. In Ram Lubhaya v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, 1974 FAC 102, the Supreme Court Laid down that the obligation of the Food Inspector was to call one or more persons to be present when he takes action. Therefore the argument that one of the persons called was not independent, cannot bear on the legality of compliance of section 10(7) of the Act, it can only effect the credibility of the witness. In the present case there was no cross-examination of the Food Inspector to show that Dharam Pal Singh was not an independent witness. It is not possible to agree that the every one attached to the Primary Health Centre must be held to be non-independent as a witness for the purposes of Section 10(7) of the Act. Dharam Pal Singh was admitted to be a vaccinator whose duties would ordinarily have no concern with the Food Inspector. The other witness Kulshresth admittedly had accompanied the Food Inspector. No further material was elicited to clinch that Dharam Pal Singh could not be regarded as an independent witness and that drafting him as a witness when other independent persons were admittedly available should be regarded as non-compliance of the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act. All the more so when considering the admission of the accused that he was taking the milk and sample was taken, the only defence was that the milk was not being sold but was being taken to the dairy. He had also stated that he had been doing milk business for the last about two months only. In the circumstances, I find no force in the contention that the prosecution or trial or conviction is bad because of non-compliance of section 10(7) of the Act. 4. He had also stated that he had been doing milk business for the last about two months only. In the circumstances, I find no force in the contention that the prosecution or trial or conviction is bad because of non-compliance of section 10(7) of the Act. 4. The other argument was that the excess of 1.7 per cent in fat content more than off sets the 5 per cent deficiency in the non-fatty solid content and the milk cannot be regarded as adulterated. Reliance was placed on Sultan Shah v. State, 1973 FAC 343 and Parsuram v. State of Rajasthan, 1979 (I) FAC 89 . In these cases it had undoubtedly been held that where fat contents arc in excess mere shortage of non-fatty solids does not justify the conclusion that the milk was adulterated. The high fat content was held to show that water had not been added and the only inference was that either the cow had not been given proper food or the report of the analyst was erroneous. With great respect I am unable to agree with the view that excess of fat content would R.I. out adulteration on account of shortage in non-fatty solid contents. 1 respectfully concur with the view taken in Megh Singh v. State, 1979 (1) FAC 59 in which Bakshi, J. repelled the above contention. I might also cite the observations of the Supreme Court in M.B. Joshi v. M.U. Shimpi, 1975 (1) FAC 214, which was a case of curd butter in which moisture content was above the prescribed limit : "If the quantity or purity of butter falls below the standard prescribed by the said R.I. or its constituents are in excess of the prescribed limit of variability it shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of section 2 of the Act. If the prescribed standard is not attained the statute treats such butter by fiction as adulterated food though in fact it is not adulterated. To put it in another words by reason of the fiction it is not permissible for the accused to prove that though the standard prescribed is not attained the article of food is not in fact adulterated ". To put it in another words by reason of the fiction it is not permissible for the accused to prove that though the standard prescribed is not attained the article of food is not in fact adulterated ". In the face of these observations, Sultan Singh's case in so far it says that the shortage may be due to the food of the cow and non adulteration cannot be said to be good law. Moreover, there can be various reasons for simultaneous excess of fat contents and shortage or non-fatty solid contents. Thus one reason can be where the milk is unusually rich in fat content and only limited water is added. Fat would still be above the prescribed standard but non-fat solid contents in which the variation is meagre would go down. Another may be that during testing the top layer of the milk which contains more fat may have been handled. Yet another may be that the wash water of empty milk cans which contained some fat particles attached to the sides was used for adulteration. 5. The remaining question is whether the position of analysing this case should lead to the inference that there may have been a mistake in the analysis and the report was not dependable. Malwa Cooperative Milk Union Ltd. v. Bihari Lal, 1973 FAC 375 was cited in support. That case was really decided on the ground that High Court should not have interfered in revision in the circumstances of that case. The deficiency in that case was of .1% in the non-fatty solids in one sample of 4% in the other sample. The trial court had acquitted the accused while setting aside the reversal of acquittal by the High Court the Supreme Court observed inter alia, " it is possible a slight error in calculation or isolation of fat may have been made but without speculating on this aspect of this case it is quite clear to us that this was hardly a kind of case in which High Court should have exercised its power to set aside an acquittal in revision ". I am of the opinion that the observation about possibility of error in isolation of fat by the analyst does not even amount to an obiter and is merely in the nature of an idea which was not pursued as the case could be decided on other considerations. I am of the opinion that the observation about possibility of error in isolation of fat by the analyst does not even amount to an obiter and is merely in the nature of an idea which was not pursued as the case could be decided on other considerations. With respect I would think that there should Sac some tangible ground for supposing that the Public Analyst's report with regard to the non-fatty solid contents may be erroneous. The mere fact that fat content excess off sets or exceeds the shortage in non-fatty solid content cannot by itself suffice for discrediting the Analyst's report whether of the Public Analyst or of the Central Food Laboratory. Something more would be necessary to take such a report and lead to the conclusion that conviction after holding the article of food adulterated on the basis of such a report was improper. Thus one such instance may be where the fat contents appear to be so excessive and non-fatty solid content so poor that the whole thing appears highly improbable. Such were the facts in Kadam Singh v. Slate of U.P., 1978 (1) FAC 160. According to the Analyst's report the fat content was 11 per cent against the prescribed 6 per cent while non fatty solid content was a bare 1.9 per cent against the prescribed 9 per cent. A Division Bench of this Court on these facts found the report to be unconvincing and observed "We have great doubt if the analysis was properly done." It follows that merely because combined total of fat and non-fatty solid content is higher than the total of the prescribed standard for such content such an inference cannot be made. Moreover, in the present case the non-fatty solid shortage is even higher than the per cent of Malwa Cooperative Milk Union Ltd. case regarding which the Supreme Court felt that acquittal should not be interfered with. 6. There is another aspect of the matter. In this case certificate of the Central Food Laboratory is on the record. After amendment of the Section by Act No. 34 of 1976, Section 13(5) of this Act provides that a certificate signed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. 6. There is another aspect of the matter. In this case certificate of the Central Food Laboratory is on the record. After amendment of the Section by Act No. 34 of 1976, Section 13(5) of this Act provides that a certificate signed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. Therefore, it is not open after this amendment to contend that the report of the Central Food Laboratory is unreliable or to exonerate any accused on the ground that a marginal departure from the prescribed standard could be overlooked on the ground of a margin of error in the Analyst's report when the effect of section 13(5) raising a conclusive presumption is to shut out not only any evidence but also agreement that the facts stated in the report are not so dependable as to warrant conviction. The conviction, therefore, cannot be held vitiated on this account. 7. The Revision is, therefore, dismissed. The revisionist who was granted bail by this Court by order dated 23-7-1980 shall be got arrested immediately to serve out his sentences according to law. The stay order dated 23-7-1980 against realisation of fine is also vacated.