JUDGMENT V.N. Misra, J. -This is an application in revision by Tudi against the judgment and order dated 19.8.81 of Sri B.K. Rathi, VI Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria, by means of which he allowed Criminal Appeal No, j 96 of 1981 and maintained the conviction and sentence of the Applicant under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case was that on 4. 11. 1979 at about 10 a. m. Ramdeo Singh, who was Food Inspector, visited the grocers shop of the applicant and, after giving the notice in Form VI, took sample of Haldi. This sample was divided in three parts and sealed. One of these samples when sent to the Public Analyst, was found coloured with lead chromate, which was a prohibited colour material. The Haldi was, therefore, found adulterated and after sanction obtained from the Chief Medical Officer, the applicant was prosecuted and has been convicted as aforesaid. 3. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant was that in this case Section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was not complied with because no witnesses were taken at the time when the sample was drawn. Form VI, however, shows that besides the Food Inspector, P. W. 2 Raj Bali was also present and signed the notice given in this form. Raj Bali himself however, denied that any sample was taken from the applicant in his presence and he also stated that his signatures on Form VI were forged and he did not sign this Form. The accused further stated that there were other several persons present; but none of them agreed to testify as a witness. From all this evidence, therefore, it would follow that P.W. 2 Raj Bali was the only witness taken, but he denied that any sample was drawn in his presence or that he signed the notice in Form VI. In order to ascertain whether P. W. 2 Raj Bali was really present and signed F the notice in Form VI expert testmony should have been obtained in respect [ of his signature to say whether he signed the notice in Form VI or not. 4. In order to ascertain whether P. W. 2 Raj Bali was really present and signed F the notice in Form VI expert testmony should have been obtained in respect [ of his signature to say whether he signed the notice in Form VI or not. 4. The other point raised was that copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not sent to the applicant along with the intimation because in the intimation sent the number of the registration receipt was given as 4228; whereas the original receipt showed that it was 4282. It is however, not unlikely that 4282, which, was the correct number, was wrongly written as 4282, as believed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge because the date of this receipt as given in the intimation as on the receipt itself is the same and is 12. 4. 1979. would, therefore, hold that Section 13 (2) was duly complied i1 with and a copy of the report of the Public Analyst, along with the necessary j intimation was sent to the applicant. Since, however, compliance of Section 10 (7) of the Act cannot be ascertained unless it is found out that P. W. 2 Raj Bali signed the notice in Form VI, therefore, the case must be sent back to the trial court to determine this point. 5. The revision is, therefore, allowed, orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the trial court are hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial court, who shall examine expert evidence to find out whether P. W. 2 Raj .Bali signed notice Form VI when sample was taken, After this has been done, the learned Magistrate shall proceed to decide the case. 6. The applicant is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties discharged. Fine paid, shall be refunded to him, It shall be open for the applicant to apply for bail afresh before the learned Magistrate.