Order Petitioners-father and son respectively, stand convicted for offences punishable under S.16(1)(a)(I)(II) read with S.2(1a)(b) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act 37 of 1954 as amended by Act 34 of 1976, and rule 5, Appendix B (A. 14) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. P.W.2, Food Inspector purchased tea dust from 2nd petitioner. A sample of this was sent for analysis and was found to be adulterated. On this evidence, Courts below found petitioners guilty as charged. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that trial was without jurisdiction, for, according to him, the Magistrate of First Class, who tried the case, or for that matter, any other First Class Magistrate is not empowered under S.16-A of the Act, to try such offences ‘in a summary way’. This contention must fail because, such a notification has been issued. It reads as under: “Notification under S.16-A: Published in Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No. 458 dated 31st July, 1976. No. 22280/G3/76/HD, dated 27th July, 1976. S.R.O.No.812/76: under S.16-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act 37 of 1954 ), the Government of Kerala hereby specially empower the Judicial Magistrates of the First class to the State to conduct summary trials in respect of all offences under sub-S.(1) of S.16 of the said Act (1976 K.L.N-419)”. 3. Learned counsel then contended that S.10(7) was violated, to that no independent witness was called. Courts below found that there was no violation of the Section. There is no factual basis, to suggest violation of S.10 (7). Besides, in the light of decisions of this court, the Food Inspector is presumed to have performed his official duties properly, unless otherwise shown. It is not shown otherwise. 4. Then, counsel submitted that there was violation of S.13(2). Submission is that by Exts.P.13 and P.14, petitioners were informed that a Complaint had been filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Kasaragod, while in fact, it was filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Hosdurg. Exts. P.13 and P.14 are dated 5-3-1981. By Exts P.20 and P.21 dated 13-3-1981, petitioners were informed that the court was the court of the Magistrate at Hosdurg. Thus the error was corrected promptly. A hypothetical argument does not commend acceptance because, petitioners did not, as a matter of fact, ” move any Court to send a sample for analysis. Exts. P.13 and P.14 are dated 5-3-1981. By Exts P.20 and P.21 dated 13-3-1981, petitioners were informed that the court was the court of the Magistrate at Hosdurg. Thus the error was corrected promptly. A hypothetical argument does not commend acceptance because, petitioners did not, as a matter of fact, ” move any Court to send a sample for analysis. Prejudice is a question of fact. There must be basis to think that prejudice was caused. One, who never made an attempt to get the sample analysed, cannot Complain of prejudice. No other contention was raised. I am not inclined to think that the findings entered are vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, to call for interference in revision. 5. As regards Ist petitioner, it was submitted that he was 71 at the material time and had nothing to do with the offence alleged, and that even according to P.W.2, Ist petitioner was not attending to any work or visiting the shop for sometime. Having regard to this, conviction against Ist petitioner is set aside: Conviction and sentence passed on 2nd petitioner are confirmed and Revision Petition is dismissed. B.S. ----- Petition dismissed.