JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - I had decided this revision application on 18th May, 1981 and had dismissed the same on that date. Since the case was listed peremptorily, I did not honour the illness slip which had been sent by Sri Chaturvedi. 2. An application has been filed today by Sri Chaturvedi that on account of his illness he could not come that day. In the interest of justice, he prayed that he may be heard on the merits and my order dated 18-5-81 may be recalled. Sri Chaturvedi also agreed to argue the case if the order is recalled so that there may be no further delay in the disposal of the revision. In the special circumstances of the case 1 have set aside my order dated 18th May, 1981 and proceeded to hear Mr. Chaturvedi in support of this application. 3. Two points have been raised by Sri Chaturvedi. The first point raised by him is that Sri M.S. Som was not posted as Food Inspector in that area, and he was not authorised to take the sample from the shop of the accused-applicant in Kasha Tanda. In this connection I have very carefully perused the statement of the Food Inspector as also the impugned order, passed by the courts below. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the Food Inspector to suggest that his jurisdiction to take the sample from the shop of the applicant at Kasba Tanda was ever challenged. If such challenges have been thrown, the prosecution would lead evidence in rebuttal. Further it may be noted that neither in the trial court nor in the appellate court judgments, is there anything to indicate that the jurisdiction of Sri Som to take the sample in question at the shop of the accused was ever challenged and argued before this court. 4. Counsel for the applicant has said that if the court desires he may file an affidavit to that effect. I do not think it necessary to afford any such opportunity for filing an affidavit, for the simple reason that a perusal of the grounds of appeal before the Sessions Judge also indicates that no ground challenging the jurisdiction of Sri Som to take the sample of laddoos from the shop of the applicant was taken. I do not think it necessary to afford any such opportunity for filing an affidavit, for the simple reason that a perusal of the grounds of appeal before the Sessions Judge also indicates that no ground challenging the jurisdiction of Sri Som to take the sample of laddoos from the shop of the applicant was taken. Thus the position very clearly is that neither the jurisdiction of the said Inspector was challenged in cross-examination; nor was this point argued before the trial court; nor was any such point taken in the grounds of appeal before the Sessions Judge; nor was any such argument advanced before the Sessions Judge. In the face of this background on facts, this court would not be justified in calling for an affidavit from the counsel, which if at all, should have been filed at the initial stage when the revision filed, if the applicant really had any grievance on this score. I am thus not satisfied that there was any lack of jurisdiction in the Food Inspector Sri M.S. Som to take the sample, in question Counsel for the applicant has cited a decision reported in 1981 A.C.C. 105 Hira Lal v. State, the facts of that case are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case, which have been enumerated above. 5. Learned counsel has then argued that independent witnesses of the locality have not been produced as in the requirement of Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In this connection also have perused the statement of the Food Inspector; it is clear therefrom that witnesses of locality were not prepared to give evidence in the case. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court has held already in decided cases, that the testimony of the Food Inspector on this ground cannot be rejected, and it would be deemed to be sufficient compliance of law. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept this submission also. 6. So far as the two applicants are concerned, Abdul Majid has been awarded a sentence of six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo 1 months' R.I. So far as applicant Mohd. Saud is concerned, he has been ordered to be released on probation on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1000/- with two sureties each in the sum of Rs. 2000/-. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo 1 months' R.I. So far as applicant Mohd. Saud is concerned, he has been ordered to be released on probation on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1000/- with two sureties each in the sum of Rs. 2000/-. After the amendment of the P.F.A. Act on 1st April, 1976, the minimum sentence i.e. prescribed for an offence of adulteration of an article of food by mixing prohibited coal-tar-dye is six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-The courts have no jurisdiction to diminish or to lessen this sentence except under very special circumstances Laid down in the proviso. That proviso is not applicable to the facts of the present case and as such no interference is called for even on the ground of sentence. 7. For the reasons given above, I do not find any merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed The applicants are on bail, as per order of this Court passed on 21st January, 1980. Abdul Majid shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded.