JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application in revision filed by Govind Narain against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, by which his conviction and sentence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred-to as the Act, were confirmed and upheld. The petitioner was prosecuted for selling adulterated Deshi Ghee at Hinda ki Mori, Galta Road, Jaipur, in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, who by his order dated September 29,1976, found the petitioner guilty of the offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to party a file of 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are as follows On March 11,1974, Ram Gopal Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner situated at Hioda-ki Mori, Galta Road,Jaipur, at 11 a.m. and saw about 70 KGs. of Deshi ghee being kept by the petitioner at his shop for sale in a container. The Food Inspector suspected the Deshi ghee to be adulterated. So he disclosed his identity to the petitioner and purchased 450 GMs. Deshi ghee for Rs. 9.67 P. from the petitioner. The Food Inspector obtained a receipt Ex..P.2 for the price of the ghee. The receipt was in the hand of the petitioners son Ghanshyam. Thereafter, the Food Inspector divided the sample of 450 GMs. of Deshi ghee into three equal parts and filled each part in a dry and clean bottle which was corked and sealed properly at the spot in the presence of Motbirs, namely, Kundan Singh and Sawtji. The Food Inspector then prepared the necessary memos there and then and, later on, sent one bottle containing sample of D,si ghee to the Public Analyst, Rajasthan, Jaipur, for analysis vide Form No. VII. The Public Analyst analysed the sample and declared the result of the analysis as follows:- "B R. reading at 40°C. 41.3 Reichert value 31.5 Free fatty acid as oleic acid 0.56% Moisture content 1.43% Baudouin test Negative. Added colouring matter Nil. Sediment Nil." In the Opinion of Public Analyst, the sample of Deshi ghee was found adulterated, as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity, because of excess of moisture content in it. Added colouring matter Nil. Sediment Nil." In the Opinion of Public Analyst, the sample of Deshi ghee was found adulterated, as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity, because of excess of moisture content in it. After obtaining the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector-made a complaint against the petitioner in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Jaipur City, under section 7 read with section 16 of the Act The Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded to try the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. In the course of the trial the petitioner being dissatisfied with the report of the Public Analyst requested the trial court to send the other sample of Deshi ghee to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for further analysis. The petitioners request was accepted and the other sealed bottle containing the sample of Deshi ghee was sent to the Director, who also opined that the sample of Deshi ghee was adulterated. The result of his analysis was as follows:- "Butyrorefractometer reading at 40°C 41.0 Reichert value 31.2 Free fatty acid as oleic acid 7.7% Baudouin test (for sesame oil) Negative Test for Mineral oil Negative Test for cotton seed oil positive added coaltar colour absent Moisture 3.0" The trial court concluded the trial and eventually came to a conclusion upon evidence on the record that the petitioner was selling adulterated ghee at his shop. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence, but it was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. Hence the petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence in this Court by way of this revision petition. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. S.N. Bhargave assisted by Mr. N.K. Maloo and Mr. S.B. Mathur, Public prosecutor for the State. 3. Firstly, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the remit of the analysis of the sample of ghee as given in the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, widely differed from the result of the analysis as shown in the report of the Public Analyst. The quantity of the moisture shown in the report of the Public Analyst dated March 19, 1974, was 1.43% while the report received from the Director, Central Food Laboratory.Calcutta, rescaled that moisture in the sample of Deshi ghee was 3%. The quantity of the moisture shown in the report of the Public Analyst dated March 19, 1974, was 1.43% while the report received from the Director, Central Food Laboratory.Calcutta, rescaled that moisture in the sample of Deshi ghee was 3%. Likewise fee fatty acid was reported by the Director, Central Food Laboratory to base 7.7% in the sample while the report of the Public Analyst disclosed it to be 0.56%. The Director, Central Food Laboratory found cotton seed on also in the sample but the report of the Public Analyst is negative for such presence. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the variance between the two reports could not have been possible in the two samples were actually taken from the same ghee at the same time. 4. I have considered the above contention. In my opinion, it is not tenable because so far as the report of the Public Analyst is concerned, stands superseded by the certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory which is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein The Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, has given detailed date in his report on the basis of which this Court can easily come to a finding that the sample of Deshi ghee taken from the petitioner did not conform to the standard of parity prescribed under the Rules and could safely be held to be adulterated. The Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, considered the entire evidence on the record and. rightly held that the sample of Deshi ghee sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta was from the same Deshi ghee of the petitioner from which the sample sent to the Public Analyst was taken. Up an close and careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on the record . I find no substantial ground for disturbing the above finding of the Sessions Judge. Hence, no importance can be attached to the difference found in the two reports regarding the degree of moisture contents and the acids. 5. Another contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the courts below committed at error in not placing reliance on the testimony of Shivaji, P.W.2, who was an independent witness and in whose presence the sample was taken by the Food inspector. He further urged that Shivaji, P.W.2. 5. Another contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the courts below committed at error in not placing reliance on the testimony of Shivaji, P.W.2, who was an independent witness and in whose presence the sample was taken by the Food inspector. He further urged that Shivaji, P.W.2. clearly stated in his deposition at the trial that the Deshi ghee was n the process of being heat d at the time when the sample was taken from it. He further deposed that bottle, were cleaned at the shop by water and the sample of hot ghee was filled therein immediately thereafter and so the possibility of high degree of moisture in the sample could not be eliminated altogether. The above contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been considered and rejected by the Sessions Judge for reasons with which I full agree and which I need not reproduce for fear of repetition Suffice it to say, that Kundan Singh, P.W 3, who was present at the time of taking the sample did not say in his deposition that the Deshi ghee was in the process of being heated at the time when the sample was taken out of it. Likewise,D.W. 4 Bhag Chand also negatived the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating in his cross-examination that when the sample was taken the Deshi ghee was not hot. Hence, the evidence of Shivaji, P.W.2 that Ghee was in the process of being heated at the time when the sample was taken and the bottles were cleaned with water at the spot is of no material 'significance in view of the credible evidence of the Food Inspector Ram Gopal and Kundan Singh P.W.3 6. Mr S.N. Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner, further contended that an application was presented by the petitioner to the trial court for sending the part of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for a certificate. Mr S.N. Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner, further contended that an application was presented by the petitioner to the trial court for sending the part of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for a certificate. On receipt of an application the trial court we bound to ascertain that the mark and the seal for fastening as provided under clause (b) of sub section (1) of section 11 of the Act were in tact, but the trial court dispatched the part of the sample seal to the Director, Central Food Laboratory without ascertaining that the mark and the seal for fastening were interest and not tampered with in any manner and so there was in compliance with the mandatory provisions of sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act resulting in great prejudice to the pensioner and causing miscarriage of justice. In support of his above contention, he place t reliance on Raj Kumar v. State, 1977 Cr. L.J. 881 (Delhi). Tezpur Municipality v. Mohanlal, 1977 Cr. L.J. 1353 (Gauhati). Modi Dahyibhai v. Jayantilal, 1968 Cr. L.J. 829 (Gujarat) Satyanarain v. State of Maharashtra, 1978 (1) F.A.J. 189 (Bombay) , and Harchand Gajpal v. The State, 1976 (1) F.A.C. 15 (Gujarat). 7. The above contention is devoid of substance, because the Director, Central Food Laboratory clearly stated in bis report that the seals were intact on the container and its covering and the sample was in a fit condition tor analysis. The trial court sent a memorandum No.447 dated 1-7-1974 along with the sealed sample of Ghee, in the memorandum No. 477 it is written that a copy of the memorandum of the specimen of the seal used to seal the container and the cover sent separately by registered post. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court did not ascertain that the mark of the seal for fastening on the container and the outer cover of the sample were in tact cannot be accepted. 8. The other contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no evidence from the side of the prosecution that the samples taken on March 11, 1974, remained in tact and were not tampered with by the Food Inspector or by anybody else and so the possibility of their being tampered with cannot be eliminated altogether. In support of his above contention he cited Nihala alias Nihal Singh v. The State of Rajasthan 1980 Rajasthan Criminal Cases 355. and State of Raj. v. Daulat Ram, 1980 Weekly Law Notes 168 (S.C.). The above contention also has no force, because the Food Inspector definitely stated in his deposition at the trial that soon after taking the sample of the Deshi ghee from the shop of the petitioner, he divided it into three equal parts and filled each part in a dry clean bottle which was duly corked and sealed there and then Thereafter, the very day he prepared Form No. VII in his office after giving one bottle to the petitioner. One of the remaining two bottles was deposited by him in the office of the Public Analyst for analysis vide receipt Ex. P. 6. The third bottle was kept by him in safe custody with the Chief Medical and Health Officer which was, later on, produced in the court. Ram Gopal Food Inspector was not cross-examined on this point. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony especially when upon careful and close scrutiny it is found credible and there is nothing on the record to contradict it. 9. Lastly, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the petitioner is held guilty of the offence punishable under sec. 7 read with sec. 16 of the Act.the sentence passed against him is severe in the circumstances of the case and the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awards to him by the trial court is reduced to a term already undergone by him and the fine of Rs. 1000/-, is considerably reduced. In support of his above contention, he relied upon Baidya Nath v. State, 1980 Criminal Law Journal 142 (Gauhati). , and State of Tamil Nadu v. S. Shanumugham Chettier and another, 1980 Criminal Appeal Reporter 381 (S.C.). 10. I have given my earnest consideration to the above contention. The offence was committed by the petitioner in the year 1974, i.e. 7 years ago He has already undergone rigorous imprisonment from December 6, 1977 to December 15, 1977. He is not a previous convict fora similar offence. Apart from this, is an old man of about 69 years. 10. I have given my earnest consideration to the above contention. The offence was committed by the petitioner in the year 1974, i.e. 7 years ago He has already undergone rigorous imprisonment from December 6, 1977 to December 15, 1977. He is not a previous convict fora similar offence. Apart from this, is an old man of about 69 years. In my opinion, the ends of justice would be met, if his sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment is reduced to a term already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default to undergo three months further rigorous imprisonment imposed on him by the trial court and confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, should be maintained However, I do not consider it a fit case for granting benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner looking to the peculiar facts and the circumstances of this case. 11. In the result, I partly accept the revision petition and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner Govind Narain under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him by the trial court to a term already undergone by him. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months is however maintained Two months time is given to the petitioner to deposit the amount of fine in the trial court, failing which action will the taken against him in accordance with law.Revision Partly allowed. *******