JUDGMENT P.N. Goel, J. - Bishwanath, resident of village Haripur, Police Station Kandhrapur, District Azamgarh, has been convicted under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to undergo further R.I. for 2 months. 2. On 26-11-1975 at 7.30 A.M. Narendra Nath Singh, Food Inspector had taken sample of buffalo's milk from the appellant in or about the town of Pandey Ka Bazar. The Public Analyst found the milk adulterated because it was deficient in non-fatty solids by about 48% and in fats by about 38%. 3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record has been examined with their assistance. 4. The appellant's counsel first of all urged that the sanction accorded by the District Medical Officer to the Food Inspector to launch prosecution was defective. 5. The record shows that the report of the Public Analyst was placed before the Medical Officer of Health. On 18-2-1976 he directed the Food Inspector Sri N.N. Singh to launch prosecution at once. Sri N.N. Singh then prepared a compliant in which he gave the entire facts. Sri N.N. Singh, Food Inspector, has stated on oath that the District Medical Officer of Health perused all the papers and thereafter accorded sanction on the complaint on 6-3-1976 Ex. Ka. 9. 6. In view of the above it is evident that the District Medical Officer of Health did not accord sanction in a mechanical manner and that he accorded the sanction for prosecution after having gone through all the papers. Therefore, this contention of the appellant's counsel has no substance. 7. The appellant's counsel next urged that R.I. 9(j) was not complied with by the Food Inspector. This R.I. enjoins upon the Food Inspector to send by hand or Registered post a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken in case the sample was found adulterated, as soon as the case was filed in the court. In the present case Sri N.N. Singh stated that he sent a copy of the report of the public analyst to the appellant on 21-2-1976 by Registered post. He filed postal receipt, Ex. ka. 7 in support of his statement. In the present case Sri N.N. Singh stated that he sent a copy of the report of the public analyst to the appellant on 21-2-1976 by Registered post. He filed postal receipt, Ex. ka. 7 in support of his statement. It was pointed out that in the postal receipt the name of Bishwanath only was written and that his full address was not written. It is a matter of common knowledge and experience that the postal officials do not write full address in such postal receipts. Moreover the omission to write full address of Bishwanath is not the fault of the Food Inspector. The Food Inspector did his duty. In these circumstances it is not correct to say that R.I. 9(j) was not complied with by the Food Inspector. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant then urged that the appellant's applications 20-B to cross-examine the public analyst and 21-B to obtain the opinion of the Director, Central Food Laboratory were wrongly rejected by the trial judge. 9. It will be noticed that the new Cr. P.C. 1973 is applicable to the case. The appellant moved an application for cross-examination of the public analyst under section 293 Cr. P.C. This application was wholly misconceived. Under this Section Government Scientific experts enumerated in sub-section 4 can be summoned for cross-examination. The Public Analyst is not one of the experts enumerated in sub-section (4). Therefore, the appellant had no legal right to make an application for summoning the Public Analyst for the purpose of cross-examination. 10. The record shows that before the moving of the application for the cross-examination of the Public Analyst, the evidence of the prosecution was over and the appellant had been examined under section 313 Cr. P.C. and then the case was fixed for arguments. It is thus evident that the appellant wanted to prolong the trial without any right. 11. In this connection it has also to be pointed out that the report of the Public Analyst is final under section 13(5) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act unless it is superseded by the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. 12. For what has been stated above the appellant's application (20-B) for summoning the Public Analyst for cross-examination was rightly rejected. 13. 12. For what has been stated above the appellant's application (20-B) for summoning the Public Analyst for cross-examination was rightly rejected. 13. After the application (20-B) was rejected, the appellant moved application 21B, on 8-10-1977 that opinion of the Director, Central Food Laboratory be taken. 14. The compliant in the instant case was filed on 8-3-1976. The appellant appeared before the Magistrate on 22-4-1976. Provisions of section 13 were amended with effect from 20-3-1976. The amended provision law down that within 10 days of the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst any party can move an application for obtaining the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory. In the present case the appellant should hare moved application soon after he put in appearance in court because he had already been furnished copy of the report of the Public Analyst. It maybe recalled that the Food Inspector sent the copy of the report of the Public Analyst by Regd. Post on 21-2-1976. The appellant must have received it well before 22-4-1976. The appellant moved no application for sending a sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The evidence of the prosecutions was recorded. Then the appellant was examined under section 313 Cr. P.C. A date for arguments was fixed Then the appellant woke up in 7 October, 1977 and moved application 21-B for obtaining the opinion of the Director after the appellant's application, 20-B, for cross-examining the Public Analyst was rejected. 15. In the above circumstances the learned trial judge was justified in rejecting the application. 16. Lastly the appellant's counsel urged that the sentence be reduced The present case falls under section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Act. The milk was adulterated as it was not of the quality or purity prescribed. Therefore, it was I adulterated within the meaning of the said term given in section 2(i)(l). It is evident that in such a case the court can impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term less than 6 months or a fine of less than Rs. 1000/- for any adequate ja od special reasons. If there are no adequate and special reasons, the court has to impose sentence of imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The appellant's counsel has referred to the case of Ajit Prasad, Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra, 1972 FAC 545. 1000/- for any adequate ja od special reasons. If there are no adequate and special reasons, the court has to impose sentence of imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The appellant's counsel has referred to the case of Ajit Prasad, Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra, 1972 FAC 545. In this case the appellant was the owner of a sweet-meat shop. His nephew also used to sit on the shop. His nephew sold the milk to the Food Inspector which was found adulterated. The appellant owner of the shop was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. This sentence was reduced half by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the appellant had entrusted the running of the shop to his nephew and that there was no evidence that any water had been added to the milk. The facts of the present case are different. In the present case the sample of milk was taken from the appellant and not from his relation or servant. 17. The appellant's counsel pointed out that the appellant was a cultivator and that he used to sell milk as a Hawker. It is a matter of common knowledge that some persons take milk from the owners of the cattle and bring the same to the town for sale. Such persons are the worst defaulters because generally they adulterate the milk and not the owner of the cattle. Therefore, no leniency can be shown in the case of such hawkers. The sentence of one year's imprisonment is, however, reduced to 6 months' imprisonment, minimum provided under the section. 18. For what has been said above, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed and the conviction of the appellant recorded by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, is affirmed. The sentence of one year's R.I. is reduced to 6 months' R.I. and the fine of Rs. 1000/- is maintained. The appellant is on bail. He will surrender to serve out the sentence. He will also pay the fine. Stay order dated 26-10-1977 is vacated.