JUDGMENT V.N. Misra, J. - This is an application in revision by Mahmood against the judgment and order dated 13-9-1980 of Sri R.C. Awasthy, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1980, which was dismissed by him and the conviction of the applicant under section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, was maintained but the sentence was modified by him. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that on 28.12.1976 at about 10 A.M. the applicant was found selling buffalo milk on Road in Saharanpur. The Food Inspector H.C. Gupta found that he had no licence to sell the milk and after his identity he purchased 660 ml. of milk and paid its price as Re. 1/-. He divided this milk three parts and sealed ;;it after adding form line as preservative in three bottles. One of these when i^sent to the Public Analyst, was found to contain only 4.5 per cent fat, 6.8 per ^cent non-fatty solids and was thus deficient by 25 per cent in fat contents and 24 per cent in non-fatty solids. Since this milk was found to be adulterated sanction of the Chief Medical Officer was obtained and the applicant prosecuted resulting in his conviction as aforesaid. 3. In this case on receipt of the report of the Public Analyst a copy of the report and the usual intimation was sent by registered post to the applicant at his correct address, but in spite of six attempts being made it could not be served. The learned additional Sessions Judge, therefore, assumed that information was received by the applicant and he himself did not deliberately accept copy of the report sent to him. Under section 313 the applicant was asked and he admitted that he received copy of the report of the P.A. along with the covering letter and since receipt of copy of the report and the covering letter was also admitted obviously, therefore, there was no breach of section 13 (2) of the Act. 4. Then, it was urged that the question put to the applicant under section 313 in respect of the copy of the report of the P.A. sent to him was not properly framed and the answer given by the applicant was patently wrong. 4. Then, it was urged that the question put to the applicant under section 313 in respect of the copy of the report of the P.A. sent to him was not properly framed and the answer given by the applicant was patently wrong. Because he did not receive the copy of this report, therefore this admission made by the applicant could not be accepted and no inference could be drawn from it. In the question put to the applicant it was asked whether he got copy of the report and the covering letter and he replied "yes, he did get it". It may be that he got copy of the covering letter and the report but did not accept it, and, therefore, the question put to the applicant was not incorrect. Since in j this case attempt was made by the applicant to get another part of the sample sent, the Central Food Laboratory for re-analysis and in the part of the sample sent to the Public Analyst adulteration was found, therefore, the applicant was j properly convicted and see no reason to interfere. 5. The revision fails and is, hereby dismissed. The conviction and a sentence of the applicant are hereby maintained. He is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to him.