JUDGMENT V.N. Misra, J. - This is an application in revision by Mian Jan against the judgment and order dated 30.6.81 by Sri P.N. Mohilay, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1980 by means of which he uphold the conviction and sentence imposed on the applicant under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act [ hereinafter referred to as the Act as passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case that on 29.6.1977 the Food Inspector purchased milk from the applicant at about 9 a.m. near the old octroi post, Cheski Sagar Lal in the municipal area of Moradabad. This was sent to the Public Analyst and was found deficient in non-fatty solids by 32 per cent. Sanction of the health authorities was, obtained and the applicant and convicted as aforesaid. 3. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant was that in this case only two witnesses were taken by the Food Inspector, namely, Nawab Ali and Ram Kishan and since both of them were Safai Zamadars and were employees of the Municipal Board like the Board Inspector himself, therefore, these witnesses were not independent witnesses and the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act were not complied with and had been breached. Section 10(7) of the Act provides that when the Food Inspector takes action under clause (a) of sub-section (2), sub-section (4) or sub-section (6) he shall, call one or more persons to be present. This would mean that when a sample is taken by a Food Inspector at least one or more person have to be called by him as witnesses. This provision has been interpreted to mean that one of two " independent witnesses should be called by the food inspector when he takes sample. 4. In this case, however, though only two witnesses, who were both employees of the Municipal Board, were taken by the Food Inspector with him; yet it was in evidence that when he was taking the sample two or four persons had collected out of curiosity. But when they were asked to testify as witnesses, they refused to do so and they also did not give their names and addresses. But when they were asked to testify as witnesses, they refused to do so and they also did not give their names and addresses. It is true it was not said in evidence when these witnesses had come, but it would seem that they had come from the very outset because the Food Inspector stated that when he took the sample these had come. It was, thus, explained in this case why independent witnesses could not be examined and when independent witnesses cannot possibly be taken to testify the action taken by the Food Inspector, it cannot be said that Section 10(7) of the Act has been breached. 5. It was then urged that the right available to the applicant under Section 13(2) of the Act was denied to him because a copy of the report of the public analyst along with the information to the applicant that he may get the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory for re-examination, was not sent to him. P.W. 3 Fateh Singh, however stated that copy of the report of the Public Analyst along with letter No PFA/77/323/370 exhibit ka 10 was sent to the applicant. In this letter, which was proved to have been sent to the applicant, it was clearly stated that the sample of milk drawn from him was found to be adulterated and if he wanted, he may make an application within ten days and get the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory for re-examination. It is true that this letter was sent to the applicant along with the copy of report of the public analyst before the prosecution was launched. This had, however, not caused any prejudice to him. What happened in this case was that the complaint was drafted out on 12.9.1977, on 19.9.1977 copy of the report of the public analyst and intimation to the applicant was sent, but the complaint was actually filed on 28.9 1977. In the intimation sent to the applicant it was also clearly stated, where he had to make an application to get the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory and within what time the application had to be made, therefore, no prejudice was caused to the applicant. 6. None . f these points raised, therefore, prevail. 7. This revision, therefore, fails and is, hereby dismissed. 6. None . f these points raised, therefore, prevail. 7. This revision, therefore, fails and is, hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail and shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence as has already been awarded to him. Stay order dated 7.8.1981 passed by this Court is hereby vacated.