JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act and sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard Sri Ravendra Singh in support of this revision application and have also perused the record of the case. According to the prosecution case a sample of Boora was purchased by the Food Inspector from the sweetmeat shop of the accused-applicant on 8th July 1977 in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample Phials, which was sent to the Public Analyst, disclosed that the total sugar as sucrose was less than the minimum prescribed standard of 96.5%. The deficiency was 2.4%. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. It appears that during the trial the applicant challenged the report of the Public Analyst and prayed that the sample be sent for analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. The sample taken from the applicant was sent to the Director and his report disclosed that the total sucrose contained was 91.6%. Thus according to this report the deficiency is 4.9%. This report supersedes the report of the Public Analyst under the provisions of law. I have, therefore, to accept that the deficiency was 4.9%. 3. The applicant's counsel has challenged the merits of the case. He has submitted that the sample was not taken by the Food Inspector and that no independent witnesses have been produced in proof thereof. This is a pure finding of fact. Both the courts below, on a consideration of the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case, have held the taking of the sample from the applicant, fully established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact. 4. Applicant's counsel has also urged that the Food Inspector had demanded a bribe from him and because the same was not paid, therefore, he has been falsely implicated. In support of this argument he has submitted that a complaint had been filed against the Food Inspector. No evidence has been produced to prove this complaint and to testify that the Food Inspector was prosecuted in pursuance thereof and was convicted. In support of this argument he has submitted that a complaint had been filed against the Food Inspector. No evidence has been produced to prove this complaint and to testify that the Food Inspector was prosecuted in pursuance thereof and was convicted. Thus there was no follow up action on behalf of the accused to prove that the Food Inspector was a dishonest person. A mere allegation is not enough to doubt the bona fides of the Food Inspector. I am, therefore, not impressed by this submission. 5. Counsel for the applicant has challenged the taking of the sample by the Food Inspector on the ground that no independent witness had been produced. I have perused Ext. K-6 as well as the receipt, on which the applicant has signed in Hindi. The Food Inspector has testified to these documents. He has also stated that no independent person was available to witness the recovery. In these circumstances the statement of the Food Inspector, with regard to the taking of the sample, has to be accepted. There is no merit in this contention also. 6. The applicant has been awarded a sentence of six months 'R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the adulteration of the Boora. The offence is dated 8th July 1977. Under the law he has been given the minimum sentence prescribed. As such no interference is possible, even on this ground. 7. There is no merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment. Stay order dated 8-7-80 is hereby vacated.