JUDGMENT V.N. Misra, J. - This is an application in revision by Shubrati against the judgment of Sri V.P. Mathur, Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, dated 10-11-1980, by means of which he dismissed the appeal No. 119 of 1980 and affirmed the judgment of Sri R.K. Gupta, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur, convicting the applicant under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) only. 2. Before me only two points were raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. It was said that in this case the mandatory provisions of Section 10(7) of this very Act had not been complied with and with this illegality the applicant could not be convicted. The second argument made was that in this case very good evidence was examined to show that this milk was not meant for sale and it was being taken to the house of Sri Amar Nath, Cashier, State Bank of India, and since it was not being taken for sale, therefore, the provisions of this Act did not apply and he could not be convicted. 3. In this case only departmental witnesses were examined by the prosecution, but there is evidence to say that the public witnesses had refused to testify as witness, therefore, no breach of Section 10(7) of the Act and on this ground, the conviction cannot be set aside. 4. The evidence examined by the applicant in this defence was, however, very good. DW 1 Amar Nath, who was a Cashier in State Bank of India, was examined. He stated that the birth-day of his son was being celebrated on 29-9-78 and he had asked Raj Bahadur at village Bahlolpur to send milk for him, Raj Bahadur was a friend of his father and, therefore, he was getting milk for him and he had asked the applicant to bring tin's milk from Bahlolpur. The applicant brought this milk and it was used in the party arranged in his house that evening. DW 2 Dinesh Kumar, Proprietor of a Dal Mill and otherwise also associated with business, stated that he was one of the persons invited to that party at the house of Amar Nath and he attended the party. The applicant brought this milk and it was used in the party arranged in his house that evening. DW 2 Dinesh Kumar, Proprietor of a Dal Mill and otherwise also associated with business, stated that he was one of the persons invited to that party at the house of Amar Nath and he attended the party. With such evidence adduced by the applicant there was no reason to disbelieve that party was held at the house of Amar Nath or that milk was not obtained from village Bahlolpur. It is also significant that the applicant was intercepted by the Food Inspector. He endorsed on the back of the receipt given that this milk was not for sale and he was taking it on 'Vyawhar'. It seems that the applicant was not asked to show as to whom he was taking this milk and from where he had got it, but it was in any case asserted that the milk was not for sale, which only confirms the defence evidence given subsequently with such good evidence it has to be believed that this milk was not for sale and, therefore, the applicant could not be convicted. 5. This revision is allowed and the conviction of the applicant and the sentence imposed on him are hereby set aside. He is on bail. He need not surrender and his bail bonds are hereby discharged. Stay order dated 12-11-80 passed by this court is hereby vacated, Fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to the applicant.