JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant was prosecuted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for exposing for sale at his shop mustard oil which was adulterated. The sample of mustard oil was purchased by the Food Inspector on 7th October, 1977. Public Analyst to whom the sample was sent gave his report to the effect that the sample contained 8 percent of Tisi Ka oil and therefore, it was adulterated. On the receipt of the aforesaid report, the Chief Food Inspector submitted a report to the Chief Medical Officer for giving sanction for prosecuting the applicant. The Chief Medical Officer accorded sanction for prosecution. 2. The prosecution examined the Chief Food Inspector Sri R. P. Atrey. The accused only denied the charges levelled against him and stated that at his shop tins of mustard oil and Alsi ka Tel were kept and the oil was being measured by one container. According to the accused the container contained oil from before and the Food Inspector took out the mustard oil from that container for the sample. 3. The trial court found the applicant guilty and convicted him under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to one year's R.I. and Rs. 1000/- fine. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal. The appellate court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence by minimum of six months' R. I. instead of one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present revision. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has challenged the two orders firstly, on the ground that the Chief Food inspector did not take any independent witness as was mandatory under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, his sole statement is not sufficient for bringing home the guilt to the applicant. Reliance has been placed on an unreported decision of this court in the case of Noor Hasan v. State (Criminal Revision No. 664 of 1978 decided on 20-7-1978). In the aforesaid case, after going through the evidence the court held that the statement made by the Food Inspector was not worthy of reliance. Reliance has been placed on an unreported decision of this court in the case of Noor Hasan v. State (Criminal Revision No. 664 of 1978 decided on 20-7-1978). In the aforesaid case, after going through the evidence the court held that the statement made by the Food Inspector was not worthy of reliance. The provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case Babulal Hargovinddas v. State of Gujarat, 1972 FAC 18, where it was held "It is not a R.I. of law that the evidence of the Food inspector cannot be accepted without corroboration. He is not an accomplice nor is it similar to the one in the case of Wills where the law makes it imperative to examine the attesting witnesses under Section 68 of the Evidence Act to prove the execution of the will. The evidence of the Food Inspector alone, if believed, can be relied upon to prove that the samples were taken as required by law. At the most court of fact may find it difficult in any particular case to R.I. on the testimony of the Food Inspector alone though we do not say that this result generally follows. The circumstances of each case will determine the extent of the weight to be given to the evidence of The Food Inspector and what in the opinion of the Court is the value of his testimony." It is thus clear that even though independent witnesses may not have been called, the sole testimony of the Food Inspector can be believed taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case the appellate court has held that the testimony of Food Inspector was quite reliable as the taking of the sample was not challenged by the applicant. In my opinion, the view taken by the appellate court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality requiring interference in this revision. 5. It has then been urged that there has been a breach of R.I. 14 inasmuch as the sample should have been filled in three empty dry phials. From a bare perusal of the statement of the Chief Food Inspector it is clear that he had taken the aforesaid precautions and the contention of the learned counsel is without any substance. 6. From a bare perusal of the statement of the Chief Food Inspector it is clear that he had taken the aforesaid precautions and the contention of the learned counsel is without any substance. 6. It has next been urged that there has been breach of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act inasmuch as a copy of the report of the result of the analysis has not been sent to the applicant. Reliance has been placed on a case of this Court reported in Chattar Pal v. State of U.P. 1980 (II) FAC 8. In the aforesaid case it has been held that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act are mandatory. In the present case I have gone through the record. The application of the accused-applicant dated 25th January, 1978 clearly shows that the applicant had received the report of the Public Analyst along with a notice. The argument raised, therefore, has no force. 7. It has then been urged that the applicant has moved the application dated 25lh January 1978 for getting the second sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta. It has been urged that according to the provisions of Section 13 (2) (a) the Court should have sent the sample received from the local Health Authority to the Director, Central Food Laboratory and this having not been done, the entire trial has been vitiated. A bare perusal of the application dated 25th January 1978 moved by the applicant shows that he had asked for calling the sample dated 8th October, 1977. On the aforesaid application the Court passed the following order : "C. M. O. Muzaffarnagar Please arrange to send the sample kept in your office to this Court at an early date. Sd/-J. M. II. 25.1.78." Thereafter an application had been moved on 11th February, 1978 by the applicant in which it had been mentioned that from the sample which had been received in that form the sample which had been received in the Court it had been found that on the sample the date mentioned is 7th October, 1977. In the aforesaid application it was prayed that the sample in which 8th October, 1977 has been mentioned should be sent to Calcutta for analysis. On the aforesaid application the Court passed the following orders : "C.M.O. Muzaffarnagar To please arrange to send the required phials in the Court. In the aforesaid application it was prayed that the sample in which 8th October, 1977 has been mentioned should be sent to Calcutta for analysis. On the aforesaid application the Court passed the following orders : "C.M.O. Muzaffarnagar To please arrange to send the required phials in the Court. Sd/- J. M. II. 13.12. 78." It appears that the Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarnagar wrote a letter to the Court intimating that the sample was actually collected on 7th October, 1977 and it was due to clerical error that in the information sent to the accused by the officer of the Chief Medical Office the date of collection of sample was mentioned as 8-10-1977. It was mentioned in the letter that the sample phial as required, was correct. On 22-2-1978 the Judicial Magistrate II passed an order on the aforesaid application to the effect : "Keep on file" A bare perusal of the complaint filed shows that it has been mentioned that the sample had been taken 011 7-10-1977. The charge which had been framed against the applicant also mentions that the sample was taken by the Food Inspector Sri R.P. Atrey on 7th October, 1977. From the aforesaid it is thus clear that the sample was taken from the accused on 7th October, 1977. It appears that information which was sent to the accused by the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarnagar mentioned the date of the sample as 8-10-1977 which was due to clerical mistake as had been mentioned in the letter of the Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarnagar. From the perusal of the application dated 25th January. 1978 it is clear that the applicant wanted the sample dated 8th October, 1977 to be sent to the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta. This fact is corroborated by the stand which the applicant had taken in the subsequent application dated 11-2-1978 in which it has been mentioned that the sample on which 8th October. 1977 has been mentioned should be called for and be sent to Calcutta. It appears that after the aforesaid application dated 11th February, 1978 the Chief Medical Officer intimated the Court that there is no sample dated 8th October, 1977 and the sample dated 7th October, 1977 is the correct sample and that the date 8-10-77 has been intimated to the accused from the office of the Chief Medical Officer because of clerical mistake. As has been observed above, on the aforesaid letter, the order of the Judicial Magistrate is to keep the same on file. From the application of the applicant dated 11th February, 1978 it is absolutely clear that the applicant was trying to take advantage of the clerical mistake and was insisting that the sample on which 8th October, 1977 is mentioned should be called for and should be sent for analysis. It also appears that when the Chief Medical Officer informed the Court about the clerical mistake, the applicant did not further peruse the matter and did not ask the Court to send the sample dated 7th October, 1977 for analysis. This fact also finds corroboration from the circumstances that this point has neither been pressed either before the trial court or before the appellate court. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in this connection has thus no force. 8. In (he' end it has been urged that the sample of mustard oil contained only ten per cent Tisi ka oil and the percentage was such which would not make it harmful for human consumption. In my opinion, a bare perusal of the standard prescribed for the mustard oil will show that it does not permit there being a mixture of any other oil. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court reported in Badri Prasad v. State 1979 (II) FAC 119. In my opinion, the aforesaid case has no application inasmuch as in the case before the Bench only 7 per cent of another edible oil was present. In the present case, the percentage of Tisi ka oil, which had been found, is over 7 per cent i.e. 8 per cent. The aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for applicant also has no force. 9. No other point has been pressed before me. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, the present revision fails and is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith to his bail bonds failing which he shall be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to him. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled. The stay order regarding realisation of fine is also vacated.