JUDGMENT V.N. Misra, J. - This is an application in revision by Ram Narain against the judgement of Sri J. P. Sharma, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, by means of which he dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 1980 and maintained the conviction of the applicant under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Very briefly stated the prosecution case was that a sample of buffalo milk, which the applicant was selling in the market, was drawn by the Food Inspector and this sample, when sent to the public analyst, was found to contain 6.9% of fatty solids and 7.5% of non-fatty solids in it. Since the non-fatty solids were deficient than the prescribed standard, the material was found to be adulterated. 3. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant was that in Ram Prasad v. State of U.P. 1981 (I) Food Adulteration Cases page 14 it was held that there was no known method by which non-fatty milk solids could be taken out of the milk without disturbing contents of the milk, falls and nature of the milk and therefore, the report of the public analyst was not reliable. This ruling cited by the learned counsel is, however, not very helpful because in order to ascertain the percentage of non-fatty solids in the milk the public analyst could have taken a portion of the sample and allowed its contents to be disturbed to find out the percentage of non-fatty solids. 4. The second point raised by the learned counsel was that in this case there were three witness before whom the sample was drawn. They were the Food Inspector himself, Raj Karan Brahman and Ram Sahai, Sanitary Supervisor. Although Raj Karan Brahman was an independent witness, but he was not produced and only Ram Sahai Sanitary Supervisor, who was an assistant of the Food Inspector, was examined. It is true that Raj Karan Brahman was not examined, but the Food Inspector should have been asked why he was not being produced and then he would have explained why Raj Karan was not examined. It is thus admitted that the sample was drawn in the presence of an independent witness. It is true that Raj Karan Brahman was not examined, but the Food Inspector should have been asked why he was not being produced and then he would have explained why Raj Karan was not examined. It is thus admitted that the sample was drawn in the presence of an independent witness. Why he was not examined, should have been asked and then the Food Inspector would have explained why he was not examined, therefore, even this point that the sample was not drawn in the presence of an independent witness is not made out. 5. The third objection taken was that in this case notice under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was taken and, therefore, the applicant did not get an opportunity of getting the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. It is true that it was mandatory that a notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act should have been given to the applicant and he should have been allowed ten days time to make an application to get the sample sent to the Central i Food Laboratory for analysis; but this was not done. Since the application was rot allowed under section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to get the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory for reanalysis, therefore, it cannot be said that the analysis as made by the public analyst was final or reliable and therefore, the conviction of the applicant cannot be upheld. 6. This revision is, therefore, allowed and the conviction and sentence of the applicant are hereby set aside. He is on bail and need not surrender. The fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to him.