JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant was prosecuted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. According to the prosecution on 27-6-1976 at about 11 A.M. Food Inspector Shri A.P. Dwivedi found the applicant selling milk from his can. A sample was taken in presence of an independent witness and the same was sent to Public Analyst. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was deficient in non-fatty solids by about 18%. Sanction was obtained for prosecuting the applicant from the concerned Chief Medical Officer and then prosecution was launched. 3. The prosecution, before the magistrate, examined the Food Inspector to prove its case. The magistrate found the charge against him to be proved and convicted him under Section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him to six months R.I. and Rs. 1000/-. Feeling aggrived, the applicant preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed. 4. In the present revision, learned counsel for the applicant has challenged the judgment of the two courts below on two grounds. Firstly, it has been urged that the sample was taken on 27-6-1976 and the prosecution was launched on 2nd May, 1977. The accused applicant put in his appearance on 2nd January, 1978. It has been urged that because of the delay in launching the prosection, the applicant could not exercise his right given under Section 13(2) of the Act by getting the sample analysed by Director of Central Food Laboratory. The two courts below held that no application was moved for getting the sample examined by the Director and thus it cannot be said that the applicant was deprived of his right to have the sample analysed because of the laches of the complainant. Reliance was placed by the appellate court on a decision of Supreme Court reported in 1972 FAC 545 (Ajit Prasad Ram Kishan Das v. State of Maharashtra). In my opinion, the view taken by the two courts below is perfectly justified inasmuch as the question as to whether the sample had deteriorated during this period would be determined only if the applicant had exercised his right under Section 13(2) of the Act by moving an application before the court. The applicant having not exercised this right, no grievance could be raised on this score. The applicant having not exercised this right, no grievance could be raised on this score. The findings recorded by the two courts below on this question cannot be said to suffer from any illegality requiring interference in this revision. 5. It has been lastly urged that there has been a violation of Section 10(7) of the Act inasmuch as the only independent witness in whose presence the sample was taken was not examined by the prosecution. It has been urged that it had been purposely done and no reliance should have been placed on the sole testimony of the Food Inspector. The aforesaid point was also raised before the two courts below and they have relied on the testimony of the Food Inspector and have held that from his testimony and from the documents on record it was proved that the sample was duly taken from the applicant. The aforesaid finding in my opinion, is based on a correct appraisal of evidence. This point has also no force. 6. No other point has been pressed before me in this revision. 7. For the reasons stated above, the present revision fails and is accordingly 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 cancelled.