JUDGMENT V.N. Misra, J. - This is an application in revision by Ganga Bishun against the judgment and order of Sri V.P. Mathur, Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, dated 19-3-1981 by means of which he dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1980 and upheld the conviction of the applicant as recorded by Sri B.K. Gupta, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur, under section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The prosecution case was that the applicant who is a resident of village ltauli, had gone to Alipur Bazaron 4-10-1978 and hhd opened his shop in the bazar and was selling Kirana goods. At about 12-30 nooa, the Food Inspector visited the shop and found about 28 kg. of Haldi which the applicant was exhibiting for sale. The Food inspector purchased a sample from the applicant but he refused to sign in token of receiving the notice. He also did not take the price of the Haldi offered to him by the Food Inspector and refused to sign the receipt. This sample taken from the applicant was sealed in three separate phials and one of these was sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated, because it was insect-infested to the extent of 68.4 per cent. 3. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant was that in this case the provisions of section 10(7), Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were not complied with because the only witnesses examined were P.W. 1 S.K. Awasthi Food Inspector and P.W.2 Ram Saran Sanitary Supervisor, who were of the same department and no independent witness was taken. The Food Inspector, however, stated that he asked those who represented to testify as witnesses but they refused and they also refused to give their names to the Food Inspector. There was thus deficient evidence before the Court to show that the Food Inspector made attempts to get independent witnesses before whom he wanted to draw the sample but the witnesses were not available. The testimony of the witnesses examined was, therefore, sufficient to show that the sample of the Haldi was taken for analysis. 4. There was thus deficient evidence before the Court to show that the Food Inspector made attempts to get independent witnesses before whom he wanted to draw the sample but the witnesses were not available. The testimony of the witnesses examined was, therefore, sufficient to show that the sample of the Haldi was taken for analysis. 4. Then, it was argued that the provisions of section 13(2) Food Adulteration Act were also not complied with because copy of report of the Public Analyst was not given to the applicant and he did not have an opportunity of getting the sample re-analysed in the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. From the testimony of P.W.3 K..P. Singh, the Despatch Clerk, C.M.O. Office, it is evident that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the applicant. The postman who went to serve the letter on the applicant made several attempts but every time it was reported to him that the applicant was not at his home and had gone somewhere. Therefore, copy of this report could not be served on the applicant and when he came to the Court then on 9-10-1980 he was given a copy of this application virtually two years after the sample was taken. After the applicant got copy of the report he could make an application that the sample be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, for analysis afresh. It is true that almost two years had passed since the time when the sample was taken, but the applicant could not get the sample sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, but this was not done. It cannot be, therefore, said that section 13(2) of the Act was not complied with nor can any prejudice to the applicant be presumed. 5. Then, the applicant examined D.W. 1 Mohd. Roshan and D.W. 2 Shyam Lal. Mohd. Roshan was Pradhan of the village and he stated that the applicant never had any shop in Alipur Bazar, nor did he hear of any Haldi sample being taken from his shop and D.W.2 Shyam Lal also stated that the applicant had no shop in Alipur Bazar. It was urged that in view of this very specific evidence it should have been held that the applicant had no shop in Alipur Bazar and the entire process of drawing the sample was fake and no sample was taken from him. It was urged that in view of this very specific evidence it should have been held that the applicant had no shop in Alipur Bazar and the entire process of drawing the sample was fake and no sample was taken from him. The trial court and also the appellate court, however, accepted the statements of P.W. 1 S.K. Awasthi and P.W. 2 Ram Saran and found that the sample of Haldi was taken from the shop of the applicant. After this finding of fact which was affirmed in appeal also 1 cannot in this revision prefer the evidence adduced by the applicant and come to a different finding. There is, therefore, no merit in this revision and it must be dismissed. 6. This revision is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the applicant are maintained. He is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail to serve out his sentence. Stay order dated 5-5-1981 is hereby discharged.