JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - The applicant Rahmat Ali has been convicted under section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for sit months. 2. The prosecution case was that the applicant was allegedly carrying mixture of cow and buffalo milk in the ratio of 1 : 3 for sale in two cans on a cycle, when a sample was taken by the Food Inspector and on analysis it was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst as it contained only 4% fat and only 7.3% non-fatty solids whereas the prescribed standard for cow's milk is 3.5% fat and 8.5% non-fatty solids and that for buffalo milk is 4.5% fat and 8.5% non-fatty solids. The applicant's defence that the milk was not for sale and was being taken by him to temple for worship has been rejected by the courts below and is no longer in point. Both the courts below found the case proved and convicted the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has reiterated the three points discussed in the judgment of the lower appellate court. It was contended that there were no independent witnesses to the sample taking, Mohd. Shueb being a Octoroi Moharrir and Rais a Municipal Mistry, thus both being Municipal employees. The Food Inspector has, however, explained that he had asked the persons present to become witnesses but they declined whereupon these Municipal employees were taken as witnesses. In these circumstances it cannot be held that there was a breach of section 10(7) of the Act because the duty of the Food Inspector is only to call independent witnesses. He cannot compel such persons to become witnesses of sample taking. Where the independent persons do not agree to become witnesses the departmental witnesses would be in order. 4. The next point is that the charge framed against the applicant did not mention the recovery of mixed milk but only cow milk and, therefore, the standard for mixture cannot be applied. The defect in the charge is undoubtedly there but as the lower appellate court has discussed the sample was adulterated even if judged from the standard for cow's milk, the deficiency in non-fatty solids being of substantial order of 1.2%. The defect in the charge is undoubtedly there but as the lower appellate court has discussed the sample was adulterated even if judged from the standard for cow's milk, the deficiency in non-fatty solids being of substantial order of 1.2%. Not only this the total of fat and non-fatty solid contents was also merely 11.3% as against 12% according to the prescribed standard. Therefore, the applicant does not get any advantage from this flaw when the offence is there even on the lighter standard mistakenly mentioned in the charge. 5. The last contention was that the applicant's application dated 14.6.78 for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory was ignored by the trial court and this has prejudiced him. It appears that the intimation under section 13(2) with a copy of the Public Analyst's report (Ex. Ka-8) was despatched to the applicant on 1-9-1977 at the correct address and, therefore, there was compliance of section 13(2). By this notice he was required to move the court within 10 days of the receipt of the notice for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory if he so desired. Instead of doing so he moved the application for sending the sample on. 1-6-1978 although he had appeared in court through counsel on 9-11-1977 and personally on 2-12-1977. I have in another case taken the view that the accused's right to ask for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory does not come to an end on the expiry of 10 days and continues during the trial unless the Magistrate chooses to reject the request for some good reason. In the present case, however, there is an apparent ground on which this request should have been rejected as belated. The sample was taken on 7-7-1977 and, therefore, the request was made about 11 months after the sample taking and that too when the notice under section 13(2) can be taken to have been received by the applicant within a week of its despatch on 1-9-1977. It has been judicially noticed that a sample of milk is likely to decompose after 10 months. The request for sending the sample on the false ground of non-receipt of the intimation under section 13(2) many months after the sample taking therefore, is called for rejection as belated. As such it cannot be held that refusal of this request caused any prejudice to the applicant. The request for sending the sample on the false ground of non-receipt of the intimation under section 13(2) many months after the sample taking therefore, is called for rejection as belated. As such it cannot be held that refusal of this request caused any prejudice to the applicant. He was himself to be blamed in not moving the court within time. This point also fails. In view of the above the conviction must stand. 6. I also see no good reason for interfering with sentences. 7. In the result the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence. The stay order dated 3-7-1980 is vacated.