M. M. LAL, J. This is a criminal revision filed against a judgment and order dated 14-1-1988 passed by Sri M. S. Premi, the then 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital by which he has dismissed the appeal filed by the revisionist. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 14-7-1985 Food Inspector, Jaspur had purchased 660 ml. of Milk from the revisionist. After necessary formalities sample of the milk was sent to the Public Analyst, Lucknow who found the said milk adulterated. The revisionist was prosecuted and the Special Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur convicted the revisionist under Sections 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default thereof to further under go R. I. for three months. Aggrieved by the same the revisionist filed appeal before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital which was also dismissed. 3. Vide order dated 25-2-1988 this revision was admitted on the point of sentence only. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has rightly conceded that the sentence of 6 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000 imposed on the revisio nist was the minimum punishment provided under the aforesaid Act. There is, therefore, no scope for any interference in the punishment awarded to the revisionist. 4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist had tried to argue before me that because no public witness was examined in this case, hence the case of the prosecution should not have been believed. This argument is devoid of force because it has come on record that Food Inspector has tried to procure a public witness at the time of purchasing the milk from the revisionist but no public witness was forthcoming. 5. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has further argued before me that atleast a departmental man was available and he could have been exa mined besides the Food Inspector to prove the case of the prosecution. In this respect it may be observed that the said point was not raised by the revisio nist either before the learned Judicial Magistrate or before the Sessions Judge. It cannot be said at this stage that whether the said departmental man was available or not whether there was any cogent reason fur not examining him 6. In this respect it may be observed that the said point was not raised by the revisio nist either before the learned Judicial Magistrate or before the Sessions Judge. It cannot be said at this stage that whether the said departmental man was available or not whether there was any cogent reason fur not examining him 6. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has also urged before me that the name of the revisionist was Balvinder Singh and not Vinder Singh. In this respect it may be observed that the learned Magistrate after comparing the admitted and disputed thumb impression of the revisionist has rightly taken a view that the evidence of the prosecution can be believed that the sample of the milk was taken by the Food Inspector from the revisionist. 7. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has lastly argued before me that because in this case the report of Public Analyst was sent to the revisionist after expiry of 8 days, hence there was no proper compliance of the Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. This argument is misconceived because according to the said rule the copy of the report of the Public Analyst has to be sent to the revisionist within a period of 10 days. There was, there fore, no violation of the said rule. 8. In view of the discussions made above and for the reasons stated this revision has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly this revision is dismissed. The revisionist who is on bail shall be taken into custody so that he may sieve out the sentence of impri sonment imposed on him. Revision dismissed. .