JUDGMENT M. Wahajuddin, J. - The revisionist Roshan Lal has been convicted by Mohammad Farooq, IX Additional Munsif Magistrate, Bareilly under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence of 6 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- has been awarded and six months further R. I. has been awarded in default of payment of fine. 2. The revisionist, Roshan Lal, preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by Sri O. P. Saxena, the then Civil & Sessions Judge, Bareilly, maintaining the conviction and the sentence. 3. Two grounds have been urged during the arguments in revision before this court. The first ground urged is that neither there was any public witness when the sample was taken, nor any independent witness has been produced. 4. It is not that there is solitary evidence of Sri D. P. Gangwar, Food Inspector (P. W. 1). There is corroboration of his evidence by Champat Rai, Vaccinator, (P. W. 2). Both the trial court and the appellate court have considered the evidence of these two witnesses' holding them worthy of credit. There is thus, concurrent finding of fact by the trial court as well as the appellate court on the point and nothing has been pointed out during arguments to suggest that the approach to the appreciation of evidence is either perverse or improper. Any material contradiction or discrepancy in the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is not established. The notice given to the revisionist before taking the sample (Ext. Ka. 2) has been proved. The receipt obtained from the revisionist (Ext. Ka 1) regarding the payment of price for 660 ml. of milk purchased from the revisionist has also been proved. The evidence further fully established that no public witness cams forward as to be available. 5. The revisionist with a view to explain away his signatures has set up a version that he had gone to Pradhan's place and his signatures were taken there in connection with accounting. Nothing has been elicited in support of such plea. There is only the interested statement of the revisionist under Section 313, Cr. P. C. on the point. The version is inherently improbable. One would not sign any blank paper in this manner. Any argument have also not been urged before me about this aspect. There is no motive for concocting any false case against the revisionist. 6. There is only the interested statement of the revisionist under Section 313, Cr. P. C. on the point. The version is inherently improbable. One would not sign any blank paper in this manner. Any argument have also not been urged before me about this aspect. There is no motive for concocting any false case against the revisionist. 6. Public men avoid to involve themselves in matters which may necessitate giving evidence and are rarely available. It would appear that the legislature has also been conscious of this difficulty. Earlier before the amendment the provisions contained under section 10 (7) of the Food Adulteration Act was, as far as possible 'call not less than two persons'. That expression has been deleted and substituted by the expression' call one or more persons' as per Amending Act No. 49 of 1964. The law does not require that such person should necessarily be of the locality. The very circumstance that the presence of not less than two persons, as provided earlier, has been dispensed with would indicate that it was realised that difficulties may arise on account of reluctance The Vaccinator is as such respectable person as any one else. There is no non-compliance of Section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and that argument has no force. 7. The next argument urged is that the sample has been found deficient only in non-fatty solids and it is not possible to actually take out non-fatty solids, without disturbing the fatty contents and in these circumstances the report of the Public Analyst is not to be accepted. Reliance was placed upon the case of Kadam Singh and Puran v. State of U. P. (1978 part I Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases page 160). The proposition of law laid down is that the report of public analyst, unlike the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory, is not conclusive. That proposition of law would not admit of any dispute. The language of Section 13 (5), which runs as follows, makes that perfectly evident :- "13 (5). The proposition of law laid down is that the report of public analyst, unlike the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory, is not conclusive. That proposition of law would not admit of any dispute. The language of Section 13 (5), which runs as follows, makes that perfectly evident :- "13 (5). Any document purporting to be a report signed by a public analyst, unless it has been suspended under sub-section (3), or any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under this Act or under Section 272 to 276 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) : Whatever other observations have been made in the case of Kadam Singh & Puran (supra) are in the context of the facts of that case. In that case the Public Analyst was examined and the Court was not impressed by his evidence. In that case, the fatty contents were much higher than the standard, while non-fatty solids were abnormally low. The standard prescribed is 6% fat and 9% non-fatty solids, vide Clause (a) 11.01.02 of Appendix 'B' of the Rules under the Food Adulteration Act. Hon'ble S. Malik, J. who dictated the judgement in the peculiar circumstances of that case, observed be that for want of a thorough shake of the sample, fat percentage may become very high, while percentage of non-fatty solids may become very low and as in that particular case such was the position and the public Analyst who was also examined, cut a sorry figure, the benefit of doubt was given; whatever observations have been made coming to the ultimate conclusion are in the light of the individual facts of that case. If it is held as a rule, that it is impossible to separate non-fatty solids from the fat contents, the aforesaid provision in appendix B containing rules would be rendered nugatory and and the standard laid down by the legislature in the aforesaid rule will be nullified. The wisdom of the legislature is not to be questioned and when certain standards have been prescribed for any food articles under the Food Adulteration Act and the Rules, the sample should come to such standard. The wisdom of the legislature is not to be questioned and when certain standards have been prescribed for any food articles under the Food Adulteration Act and the Rules, the sample should come to such standard. It may be quite different thing to doubt the correctness of the report of the public Analyst in special circumstances of any particular case. Such circumstances are not shown to exist in the present case. 8. It has been held in a number of pronouncements of this Court itself that where there is no proof of any supersession of the report of the Public Analyst, his report remains effective and valid. Naruti v. State (1978 (II) FAC 2641, B. K. Jain v. State 1965 A.L.J. 182 Municipal Board Kanpur v. Mohan Lal (1960 A.L.J. 419) and Nagar Swasthya Adhikari v. Mongolia (1970 A.L.J. 1049) are all authorities on the point. 9. In the case of Municipal Board Kanpur (supra) the observation is 'it is deem to be correct for all purposes'. In the case of Nagar swasth Adhikari (Supra) at page 1052 in para 7, it has been held that the report of the Public Analyst shall be evidence in the case and the conviction of the accused can be based on the report of the public Analyst. The case of Mangaldas Raghav v. State 1976 (I) FAC 43 it has been observed that the conviction of the accused persons can be based on the report of the public analyst. Of course it is for the court to decide what value it would attach to the report of the public analyst and the report is not conclusive ; but in absence of any circumstances indicating that the report of the public analyst is not reliable, the court can safely act upon it. 10. In the case of Naruti v. State (supra) the milk was found deficient in non-fatty solids and the conviction was upheld holding the milk to be adulterated. The report of the public analyst was held to be valid. 11. I, therefore, hold that there is no justification for even ruling or rejecting the report of the public analyst. It is established from the report of the public analyst that the milk was adulterated. The ingredients of the offence, for which the Revisionist has been convicted, are made out in this case. The sentence also cannot be considered to be severe. It is established from the report of the public analyst that the milk was adulterated. The ingredients of the offence, for which the Revisionist has been convicted, are made out in this case. The sentence also cannot be considered to be severe. The revision, therefore, fails. 12. This revision is, accordingly dismissed. The conviction of the accused person and the sentence passed against him is maintained. He is on bail. He shall surrender to serve out the sentence passed against him.