JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant was prosecuted under Sections 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. According to the prosecution case the applicant is a milk vendor and was taking mixed milk of cow and buffalo for sale. The Food Inspector purchased milk from him and the aforesaid sample of the milk was sealed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and then sent to the Public Analyst who reported the sample to be deficient in the fat contents by 38% and in the non-fatty solids by 32%. Sanction was obtained from the concerned Chief Medical Officer and then the prosecution launched. 3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined the Food Inspector and one other witness. The applicant on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution was found guilty of having committed an offence under Sections 7/16 of the Act and was sentenced to six months R.I. and Rs. 1000/- fine. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, on December 12, 1979. 4. In the present revision, learned counsel for the applicant has challenged the aforesaid two orders on two grounds. It has been firstly urged that the provisions of rule 9(j) of the rules framed under the Act have not been complied with inasmuch as the report of the Public Analyst has not been sent to the applicant within the prescribed time. A bare perusal of the judgment of the Sessions Judge would show that the report of the Public Analyst was sent by registered post to the accused on 6-2-1976. The Sessions Judge has rightly held that there was nothing on the record to demonstrate infraction of rule 9(J). 5. It has been next contended that as required by Section 10(7) of the Act the Food Inspector should have procured an independent witness and the entire trial is vitiated because of not complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act. I am not inclined to agree with the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel. It has been held that the provisions of Section 10(7) are not mandatory and that they only require that the Food Inspector should make his efforts to procure independent witness. I am not inclined to agree with the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel. It has been held that the provisions of Section 10(7) are not mandatory and that they only require that the Food Inspector should make his efforts to procure independent witness. In case the Food Inspector has not taken such a step the trial will not be vitiated. However, it will be for the court of fact to scrutinise the evidence of the Food Inspector keeping in view the fact that it is not corroborated by independent witness. This argument has also thus no substance. 6. In the end, it has been urged that the prosecution against the applicant was launched in pursuance of a sample which was taken on 19th June, 1975, and that the applicant is a poor milk vendor and may not be sent to jail after such a lapse of time. It has been urged that the applicant has already remained in jail for 16 days. The learned counsel for the applicant has also made a statement that in case the amount of fine imposed on the applicant is enhanced, the same may not be treated as enhancement of sentence. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case specially the facts that the sample was taken in the year 1975 and that the applicant is a poor milk vendor in the interest of justice the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine imposed on the applicant is enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine the applicant shall undergo four months R.I. The applicant is allowed two months time to deposit the fine from the date of the receipt of the record in the trial court. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled. If any amount of fine has already been paid by the applicant, the same will be adjusted towards payment of fine under this order. 7. The revision is dismissed subject to the modification in sentence as has been indicated above.