JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Pood Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/. In default of payment of fine he is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Bareilly. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector had purchased a sample of cows milk from the applicant at about 1-30 P.M. on 4th March, 1976 in Mohalla Saidana Road in the city of Bareilly, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, whose report disclosed that it contained non-fatty solids 8.7% and milk fat 1.7% and was thus deficient in fatty solids by about 51%. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case have held the applicant guilty of the offence for which he was charged. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by them. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there has been non-compliance of Section 10(7) of the P.F.A. Act inasmuch as independent witnesses of the locality have not been produced to prove the taking of the sample. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue more than once. Failure to comply with the provisions of section 10(7) of the P.F.A. Act merely renders the testimony of the Food Inspector liable to rejection, if it is found unsatisfactory. Law does not lay down that in the absence of compliance of this provision the trial is vitiated. I have carefully perused the impugned order. The courts below have considered the statement of the Food Inspector and found it to be reliable. In my opinion, when the testimony of the Food Inspector is found to be reliable by both the courts below, there is no ground for disbelieving it in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. A conviction can be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of the Food Inspector. 5. There is no merit in this revision which is hereby dismissed. In my opinion, when the testimony of the Food Inspector is found to be reliable by both the courts below, there is no ground for disbelieving it in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. A conviction can be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of the Food Inspector. 5. There is no merit in this revision which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment. The interim order passed by this Court on 2-11-1979 is hereby vacated.