JUDGMENT P.N. Goel, J. - Har Swaroop, a milk seller, resident of village Panchli, police station Partapur, district Meerut, revisionist was convicted under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo further imprisonment for three months. The conviction was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Meerut. Appeal preferred by the revisionist was dismissed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has urged four points of law which are : (1) Sanction dated 28.2.77 accorded by the Chief Medical Officer was not valid, (2) Compliance of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act was not made, (3) Charge framed against the revisionist was defective, and (4) Compliance of Section 10 (7) of the Act was not made. To appreciate and determine the points raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist it is proper to narrate the facts of the case in detail. In the early morning of 30.9.76 M. L. Agrawal, Food Inspector of Jani area (P. W. 1), P. K. Goel, Food Inspector (P. W. 2) and D. V. Saxena, Food Inspector left their office on motor cycles. They reached near the 'Piyao' of village Paoti. At that time the revisionist was coming on a bicycle from the side of his village Panchil along with buffalo milk. On being asked by M. L. Agrawal the revisionist stopped there. M.L. Agrawal saw the milk and felt suspicious. Thereupon he told the revisionist that he would send sample of his milk for examination. He took 660 milli litre of milk on payment of Rs. 1.50 vide notice Ex. Ka/1 and receipt Ext. Ka/2. Thumb mark and signature of the revisionist were taken on both the papers. P. K. Goel, D. V. Sexena and one Om Prakash who happened to come there signed on the receipt Ex. Ka/2. The milk was filled in three bottles in equal quantity. In each bottle 18 drops of formalin of 40% strength were dropped. The bottles were then sealed. One bottle was sent to the Public Analyst on the same day vide letter Ex. Ka/3 and two bottles were deposited in office at Meerut. Ka/2. The milk was filled in three bottles in equal quantity. In each bottle 18 drops of formalin of 40% strength were dropped. The bottles were then sealed. One bottle was sent to the Public Analyst on the same day vide letter Ex. Ka/3 and two bottles were deposited in office at Meerut. The public Analyst examined the milk and recorded his report on 4.11.76 saying that the milk was deficient in fat contents by 8% and in non-fatty solids by 24%. In this way the milk was found adulterated vide Ex. Ka/4. M. L. Agrawal then prepared report Ex. Ka/5 and submitted all the papers to the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut for according sanction for the prosecution of the revisionist. Sri B. K. Sharma, Chief Medical Officer accorded sanction on 28.2.77 vide Ex. Ka/6. M. L. Agrawal then filed complaint before the Magistrate on 10.3.77. The Magistrate took cognizance of the case and issued summons to revisionist. On 16.5.77 the revisionist appeared before the Magistrate and furnished bail bonds and then he was given relevant copies. On 8.7.77 M. L. Agrawal was examined. He was cross-examined in part. On 5.10.77 the revisionist was examined. On the same day the Magistrate framed charge. While questioning the revisionist and in framing the charge the Magistrate mentioned the place of taking sample as Panchli instead of Pavti, notwithstanding that the place of taking sample mentioned in the complaint as well as in the statement of M. L. Agrawal dated 8.7.77 was village Pavti. On 29.8.78 M L. Agrawal was further cross-examined. Then on 8.1.79 P. K. Goel (P. W. 2) was examined. On 26.3.79 the revisionist was examined under section 313, Cr. P. C. He stated that he would lead evidence in defence. On the same day Om Prakash, a witness on the receipt-Ex. ka/2- was examined as D.W. 1. The case was then adjourned for arguments on 16.4.79, 3.5.79 and 6.6.79 on account of the absence/illness of the counsel for the revisionist. On 13.6.79 the revisionist moved an application for summoning a record. On 20.6.79 the revisionist gave application praying that one of the bottles maintained in the office be called and sent to Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis/examination. The Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that it was highly belated. On 13.6.79 the revisionist moved an application for summoning a record. On 20.6.79 the revisionist gave application praying that one of the bottles maintained in the office be called and sent to Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis/examination. The Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that it was highly belated. The Magistrate, however, summoned Narendra Kumar, a Clerk in the office of the Chief Medical Officer because the grievance of the revisionist was that he had not received copy of the report of the Public Analyst as provided in Section 13 (2) of the Act. Narendra Kumar was examined as C. W. 1. on 27.10.79. On the same date the revisionist was further examined. The case was ultimately decided by the Magistrate on 28.1.80. 3. The legal points urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist may now be dealt with one by one: (1) Sanction Ex.Ka/6 is not on a printed form. It is a typed one. It bears the signature of Sri B. K. Sharma, Chief Medical Officer. It is reproduced below : Office of the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut No. C. M. O/F-3 (Consent)/77/29 dated 29/2/77. All the papers submitted by Sri M. L. Agrawal, Food Inspector, P. H. C. Jani, Distt. Meerut have been seen. Consent for institution of prosecution against Sri Har Swaroop S/o Sri Sheo Raj, village & P. O. Panchali, Police Station Partapur, Distt. Meerut is hereby given. Let prosecution be instituted against him in the court." 4. The signatures of Sri B. K. Sharma appear in blue blank ink. His signatures also appear on papers Exs. Ka-1 to Ka-5 below the word "seen". It means that Sri B. K. Sharma had seen all these five papers. At the top slanting line and figure "29" thereafter are in different ink and the date 28-2-77 is also in different ink. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist urged that the Chief Medical Officer did not apply his mind and that he signed on the sanction without applying his mind. He has given one reason for this contention. It is this that the date and figure "29" at the top are in different ink. This contention is not correct. Sri B.K. Sharma had seen all the five papers and had made endorsements thereon under his signature/initial. He has given one reason for this contention. It is this that the date and figure "29" at the top are in different ink. This contention is not correct. Sri B.K. Sharma had seen all the five papers and had made endorsements thereon under his signature/initial. Number and date on the letter are generally written by the office after the typed letter has been signed by the officer. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to the following 1. Kishan Lal v. State 1978 (II) FAC 130; and 2. Kewal Ram v. States 1979 Alld. Criminal Cases 254. In both these cases the sanction was on a printed form. The blanks of the forms were not tilled in by the Chief Medical Officer. In the first case the dates filled in the blanks were incorrect. In the other case the blanks were filled in by the Food Inspector. In these circumstances, it was held that the sanction was not valid; that the Chief Medical Officer had not applied his mind and that he accorded sanction in a mechanical manner. These cases are not of any help to the revisionist. In the present case the sanction is not on a printed form. It appears that the Chief Medical Officer saw all the relevant papers, made endorsements thereon and then dictated the sanction and then signed the same. The sanction is a speaking one. It will be noticed that M.L. Agrawal (P.W. 1) proved the signature of Sri B.K. Sharma on the sanction. Not a single question was put to M.L. Agrawal to indicate that the Chief Medical Officer accorded sanction in a mechanical manner. In view of all these facts there is no substance in the contention that the sanction was not valid and legal. (2) Section 13 of the Act was amended by Act no. 34 of 1976 with effect from 1.4 76. The sample in the present case was taken on 13.9.76. In view of all these facts there is no substance in the contention that the sanction was not valid and legal. (2) Section 13 of the Act was amended by Act no. 34 of 1976 with effect from 1.4 76. The sample in the present case was taken on 13.9.76. On this date sub-section (2) of Section 13 stood as follows: "On receipt of the report of the result of the analyst under subsection (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the local (health) authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article was taken ......forward.....a copy of the result of the analyst to such person......informing such person.......that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of 10 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the report to get sample of the article of food kept by the (health) authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory." 7. In the instant case the complaint was filed on 10.3.77. Narendra Kumar (C. W. 1) stated that copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the revisionist on 15.3.77 by regd. post under postal receipt No. 1354. The stand of the revisionist is that he did not receive a copy of the report of the Public Analyst. There is nothing in the statement of Narendra Kumar to show that the registered cover was received back in this office. In these circumstances, it can easily be presumed that the registered cover containing copy of the report of the Public Analyst was delivered to the revisionist. The revisionist should have, therefore, applied within ten days for sending one of the bottles maintained in the office of the Chief Medical Officer to the Central Food Laboratory for a second opinion. Assuming for a moment that the revisionist did not receive the registered cover, it is evident that the revisionist must have received a copy of the complaint along with summons vide section 204(3) Cr. P. C. The revisionist appeared before the Magistrate on 16.5.77. On that date he furnished bail bonds and copies were given to him. It will next be seen that the statement of M.L. Agrawal was recorded on 8.7.77 in the presence of the revisionist. P. C. The revisionist appeared before the Magistrate on 16.5.77. On that date he furnished bail bonds and copies were given to him. It will next be seen that the statement of M.L. Agrawal was recorded on 8.7.77 in the presence of the revisionist. In the complaint as well as in the statement of M.L. Agrawal the result of the analysis of the sample mentioned in the report of the Public Analyst was specifically mentioned. Therefore, the revisionist should have immediately applied for sending one of the bottles kept in the office of the Chief Medical Officer to the Central Food Laboratory for examination. In any case he should have made an application within a reasonable time of his having received a copy of the complaint along with summons or within a reasonable time of the statement of M. L. Agrawal recorded on 8.7.77. The revisionist remained quiet and for the first time he moved the application two years later. The Magistrate had recorded the entire evidence of the complaint as well as of the revisionist by that date. In order to remove the doubts of the revisionist in the matter of sending a copy of the report of the Public Analyst after the institution of the complaint the Magistrate summoned Narendra Kumar, Food Clerk in the office of the Chief Medical Officer and examined him on 27.10.79. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist referred to the case of Murari Lal v. State (1981 (1) FAC 157). In this case the accused appeared before the Magistrate on 31.5.77 and 14.7.77 was fixed for prosecution evidence. On 14.7.77 he put in an application that the sample be sent to the Central food Laboratory. It will be noticed that in this case the accused took action almost at an early stage of the case. The Magistrate rejected his application after a long time. It was held that the Magistrate was wrong in doing so and for this mistake of the Magistrate the accused was given benefit. It will be noticed that in this case the accused took action almost at an early stage of the case. The Magistrate rejected his application after a long time. It was held that the Magistrate was wrong in doing so and for this mistake of the Magistrate the accused was given benefit. In the course of the judgment the court observed : "The utmost that can be said is if the accused fails to apply for analysis by the Central Food Laboratory within ten days and delays his request the following conclusions will follow : (1) If the request unduly delayed so much so that the sample can reasonably be expected to have decomposed or deteriorated or the request can be regarded as not bona fide and calculated to obstruct the trial, the court may reject the prayer. A Judicial decision in each case after considering the extent of the delay and the explanation of the accused for the delay will have to be given on the application A little earlier the court observed : "It may of course.be that in a certain case the delay is so inordinate that it may legitimately be held that analysis will be pointless. Thus, it has been held that milk sample is likely to be decomposed and not admit of proper analysis under the rules after ten months. If a request is, therefore, made after more then ten months for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory, notwithstanding the receipt of the intimation under Section 13 (2) well in time the rejection of the application may be in order." 9. In this connection reference may be made to the Full Bench case of Nagar Swastha Adhikari v. Mangalia 1970 ALJ 1049. The relevant observation at page 1055 reads as follows : "It is common knowledge that milk sours and curdles very soon. Once it curdles it becomes unfit for analysis. Where no formalin is added to a sample of milk the process of souring and ultimately of curdling will be accelerated and may take place within two to three days. The relevant observation at page 1055 reads as follows : "It is common knowledge that milk sours and curdles very soon. Once it curdles it becomes unfit for analysis. Where no formalin is added to a sample of milk the process of souring and ultimately of curdling will be accelerated and may take place within two to three days. However, where formalin of 40 per cent strength has been added to a sample of milk in the proportion of two drops to an ounce of milk the same remained fit for accurate and reliable analysis for a much longer period Even where it is not kept in a refrigerator it may normally remain fit for accurate and reliable analysis for about ten months after the date of the taking of the sample we got limit of ten months made by the public Analyst in a case under order of this court." 10. In the present case there is positive evidence that in 220 mili litre of milk 18 drops of formalin of 40% strength were mixed. 220 milli litre is not more than 8 ounces. Therefore, the milk in the present case would have deteriorated after about ten months. 11. Taking into consideration all what has been mentioned above it is not correct to say that compliance of the provisions of Section 13 (2) was not made and that the revisionist was prejudiced because of the order of rejection passed by the Magistrate on his application for sending one of the samples to the Central Food Laboratory. (3) It is correct to say that the Magistrate while examining the revisionist on 5.10.77 mentioned that the sample was taken near village Panchli. In the charge the Magistrate mentioned village Panchli as the place where the sample was taken. But in the present case this has not caused any prejudice to the revisionist because village Pavti was clearly mentioned in the complaint. A copy of this complaint was received by the revisionist along with summons on or before 16.5.77. Then, M. L. Agrawal clearly stated on 8.7.77 that the sample was taken near the piaoo of village Pavti. The J Magistrate seems to have mentioned village Panchli as the place of taking I sample inadvertently because the revisionist is a resident of the said village. It will be noticed that M. L. Agrawal was cross-examined on 29.8.78. Then, M. L. Agrawal clearly stated on 8.7.77 that the sample was taken near the piaoo of village Pavti. The J Magistrate seems to have mentioned village Panchli as the place of taking I sample inadvertently because the revisionist is a resident of the said village. It will be noticed that M. L. Agrawal was cross-examined on 29.8.78. Not a I single question was put to him that the sample was actually taken neat village Panchli and not near village Pavti. It is thus, evident that the revisionist knew very well that according to the complaint the sample was taken near Pavti. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defect in the charge goes to vitiate the trial or it has caused any prejudice to the revisionist. (4) The statement of M. L. Agrawal shows that Om Prakash Gujar of village Panchli happened to come and, therefore, his signature was obtained on the receipt. Om Prakash was examined by the revisionist. He stated that he had not signed on the receipt Ex.Ka/2 and that no sample of milk of the revisionist was taken in his presence. It will be noticed that he is of the village of the revisionist. His statement shows that he is nephew of the revisionist. On account of this relationship the Magistrate did not accept his testimony. It appears that on behalf of the revisionist reliance was not placed on the statement of Om Prakash before the lower appellate court. Its reason is that there is no particular reference to the statement of Om Prakash in the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge. 12. Learned counsel for the revisionist urged that after the statement of Om Prakash the complainant should have got his signature compared with the signature on Ex. Ka/2. This contention carries no force. It will be noticed that the revisionist admitted his signature on the notice and receipt Exs.Ka/1 and Ka/2. This clearly shows that the revisionist admitted that sample of his milk was taken. 13. Statement of M. L. Agrawal shows that there was no other person I coining on road at the time of the taking of the sample. 14. It will be noticed that the revisionist admitted his signature on the notice and receipt Exs.Ka/1 and Ka/2. This clearly shows that the revisionist admitted that sample of his milk was taken. 13. Statement of M. L. Agrawal shows that there was no other person I coining on road at the time of the taking of the sample. 14. Section 10 (7) of the Act lays down that at the time of taking I the sample the Food Inspector shall call one or more persons to be present at I the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures. In the present case as no other person was coming on the road, the Food Inspector could not have called any body. Moreover, non-compliance with the provisions of sub-section (7) does not per se vitiate the trial and that there is no rule of law that the evidence of the Food Inspector cannot be accepted without corroboration. It has been indicated above that the revisionist admitted his signature on the notice and receipt Exs. Ka/1 and Ka/2. 15. In the circumstances mentioned above it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 10 (7) were not complied with and that the conviction of the revisionist should be set aside. 16. There is no merit in any of the points urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 17. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. Stay order dated 2.5.80 is vacated. The revisionist is on bail. He shall surrender to serve out the sentence.