V. N. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) - This is an application in revision by Sobaran Singh against the Judgment and order dated 10. 6. 1981 by Sri R. S. Nigam, VI Additional Sessions Judge. Agra, in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1981 by means of which he confirmed the conviction and the sentence of the applicant under section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. ( 2 ) VERY briefly stated, the prosecution case was that on 18-8-1977 at about 6. 45 a. m. J. P. Saxena, Food Inspector, took sample of buffalo milk from the applicant. He gave a notice to the applicant that he was the Food Inspector and intended to send the sample for analysis. The sample taken by him was divided in three parts and sealed in clean dry bottles. One of these sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated. Sanction of the C. M. O. was, therefore, obtained and the applicant prosecuted resulting in his conviction as aforesaid. ( 3 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that this milk was not meant for sale and the applicant was taking it to a friends house for Brahmbhoj. The evidence, however, was that some of this milk was actually sold to the Food Inspector and he gave its price to the applicant. Then, the applicant did not state even under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code that this milk was not meant for sale and what is very significant is that according to the applicant he was required to take only 2 or 21 kg. of milk for the Brahmabhoj, but he was actually carrying milk in two drums which was of 27. 4 litres. It is, therefore, obvious that he could not have been taking this milk for Brahmbhoj and because there was evidence to show that he actually sold it, therefore, it was meant for sale. ( 4 ) THE second point urged was that no independent witnesses were taken at the time when the sample was drawn but the Food Inspector stated that the witnesses did not come and refused to testify to the taking of the sample. Since it was explained why independent witnesses could not be taken no adverse inference could be drawn because such a witness did not appear. Since it was explained why independent witnesses could not be taken no adverse inference could be drawn because such a witness did not appear. ( 5 ) IT would thus be seen that none of the grounds taken by the applicant prevail. ( 6 ) THIS revision, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. His conviction and sentence are hereby maintained. He is on bail. He shall be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out his sentence. Stay order dated 1-9-1981 is discharged. Revision dismissed .