JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant was prosecuted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The applicant was found selling and showing for sale the buffalo milk at his milk and sweet shop situated at Mohalla Pucci San, Etawah. The Food Inspector purchased samples from the accused and sent the same to the Public Analyst. The sample was found deficient in fatty contents by about 23 per cent and non-fatty solids contents by about 8 per cent. The prosecution was launched after obtaining necessary sanction of the Chief Medical Officer. 3. The prosecution examined Sri Mewa Ram Sharma, Food Inspector as P.W. 1 and Sri Devi Deen Sanitary Supervisor, C. M. O. Office Etawah as P. W. 2. 4. The applicant alleged before the Magistrate that the milk was not being sold at his shop and that the milk was of goat and that he had told at the spot that he had not sold the milk. The Magistrate found the applicant guilty and convicted him under section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him to six month's R.L and Rs. 1000/- as fine. 5. The applicant filed an appeal which was also dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the applicant was maintained. Aggrieved, the applicant has come up in the present revision. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant firstly argued that as the applicant was not selling buffalo milk, it has been wrongly held that the standard prescribed for buffalo milk was applicable. The two courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact on correct appraisal of evidence that the applicant was found selling buffalo milk and the said fact the Food Inspector and witness Devi Deen both have categorically stated that the applicant told them that it was a buffalo milk. In the Receipt Exhibit Ka. 3, the sample milk taken by the Food Inspector was mentioned as buffalo milk. In case the applicant was selling goat milk, there was no reason as to why the above fact would not have been noted in the Receipt Exhibit Ka. 3. The contention raised, therefore, has no substance. 7. It has been next urged that there has been contravention of the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act inasmuch as independent witnesses were not called at the time of taking the sample. 3. The contention raised, therefore, has no substance. 7. It has been next urged that there has been contravention of the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act inasmuch as independent witnesses were not called at the time of taking the sample. In the evidence of the Food Inspector it has come that he made all attempts to call the members of the general public and the neighbours to witness the taking of the sample but none was willing to cooperate. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lobhaya v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, 1974 FAC 102 that Food Inspector cannot compel the independent witnesses to witness the taking of the sample and the trial will not be vitiated on that account. Further, it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Babulal Hargovind Das v. State of Gujarat, 1972 FAC 18 that it is not a R.I. of law that the evidence of the Food Inspector cannot be accepted without corroboration. In my opinion the two courts below have rightly believed the testimony of Food Inspector P.W. 2 and Devi Deen, P.W. 2 regarding the taking of sample. 8. It has been then urged that the report of the Public Analyst is not reliable inasmuch as in this case the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis and the two reports differ from each other. The appellate court has noticed the relevant parts of the two reports of the Public Analyst as also of the Central Food Laboratory. A bare perusal of the two reports would show that both of them found the milk to be adulterated. The sample was below the prescribed standard according to both the reports and thus, the applicant cannot derive any help only because two reports do not tally each other in all material particulars. 9. Lastly, it has been urged that there has been non-compliance of section 13(2) of the Act inasmuch as no notice was given for launching of the prosecution and the report of the Public Analyst was not sent to the applicant. This point does not appear to be correct inasmuch as notice, in fact, was sent and in pursuance of that the accused exercised his right of the sample being sent to the Central Food Laboratory. 10. No other point has been pressed before me. This point does not appear to be correct inasmuch as notice, in fact, was sent and in pursuance of that the accused exercised his right of the sample being sent to the Central Food Laboratory. 10. No other point has been pressed before me. 11. For the reasons stated above, the present revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.