JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to 1 year's R.I. and fine of Rs. 2000/- by the trial Court. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Fatehpur. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the record of the case. The prosecution story is that the Food Inspector purchased a sample of buffalo milk from the accused-applicant in the morning of 30th March, 77, on the Banda Sagar Road near the octroi post in accordance with the provisions of law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that it was deficient in non-fatty solids by 19 per cent and hence adulterated. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on the record, and the circumstances of the case have held the guilt of the accused established. 3. Counsel for the applicant has argued that in the instant case, there has been non-compliance of Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, inasmuch as the Food Inspector did not call for one or more independent person of the locality to witness the taking of the sample. It has been held by the Supreme Court in 1974 F.A.C. page 102 Ram Lubhiya v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi that non-compliance with the provisions of subsection (7) of Section 10 does not per se vitiate the trial. It has come in the evidence that apart from the Food Inspector, the statement of one Rais was also recorded to witness the taking of the sample. It has been argued by the applicant's counsel that Rais had appeared as a witness on earlier occasions for the prosecution and that he has not signed all the relevant papers. It was not denied that the evidence on the record does disclose that Rais had appeared as a witness previously, and evidence further discloses that Rais had not signed the notice, in form 6 Ex. Ka 1, but there is nothing to indicate that Rais was held to be a lair by any court when he appeared as a prosecution witness on earlier occasions. Further I find that the receipt Ex. Ka 1, but there is nothing to indicate that Rais was held to be a lair by any court when he appeared as a prosecution witness on earlier occasions. Further I find that the receipt Ex. Ka 2 has been signed by Rais. Mere omission to sign the notice (Ex. Ka 1) is not a sufficient ground to hold that Rais was not present on the spot. Further I have no reason to disbelieve the statement of the Food Inspector, which I have perused with care. He has stated that the other witnesses of the locality were not prepared to give evidence, therefore, he asked Rais to witness the taking of the sample. Moreover, it is not a rule of law that the evidence of the Food Inspector can not be accepted without corroboration; therefore, in the instant case even the testimony of the Food Inspector can be relied upon as sufficient for proving the taking of the sample. I, therefore, do not find any force in this contention advanced by the applicant's counsel. 4. The next submission made on behalf of the applicant is that the prosecution had been instituted in court on 26th May, 1977, but the report of the Public Analyst Ex. Ka 4 is alleged to have been dispatched to the applicant on 23rd May, 1977 vide receipt 1277 filed on behalf of the prosecution. I have carefully perused the statement of the Food Inspector. He has very clearly stated that after the complaint had been filed in court, a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent under registered cover to the accused. He has proved the signature of the Sanctioning authority. In Ex. Ka 8 underneath the signature of the Sanctioning Authority, the date given is 26th May, 1977. It is mentioned in Ex. Ka 8 that if the applicant desired he may apply under section 13(2) of the Act, within ten days of the receipt of this copy for the re-examination of the sample by the Director, Central Food Laboratory Calcutta. Much stress has been laid upon the receipt No. 1277. The stamp of the post office on the receipt is not very clear. Learned counsel has argued that the date on this receipt is 23rd May, but to my mind the date is 28th May, 1977. Much stress has been laid upon the receipt No. 1277. The stamp of the post office on the receipt is not very clear. Learned counsel has argued that the date on this receipt is 23rd May, but to my mind the date is 28th May, 1977. It is to be noticed that no-where in the courts below it was argued on behalf of the applicant that the stamp on this receipt No. 12?7 is dated 23rd May, 1977. This is an ingenious argument, which has now been pressed into service by the applicant's counsel taking advantage of the incomplete impression of the seal on the receipt. It is noticeable that even in the grounds of revision filed in this court, the receipt was not challenged on the ground that it is dated 23rd May, 1977. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst and the intimation attached thereto Ex. Ka 8 was dispatched to the accused-applicant on 28th May, 1977 after the prosecution had been lodged on 26th May, 1977. 5. I have perused the defence evidence also in this connection, but in my opinion, it does not cast any doubt upon the correctness of the findings recorded by the courts below. The sentence which has been awarded to the applicant is the minimum provided under law, and therefore, no interference is possible on this ground. 6. There is no merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed.