ORDER 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 Addl. 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 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. 1000/- or in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for three months. Aggrieved by the same the revisionist filed appeal before the 1st Addl. 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 revisionist 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 forth coming. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further argued before me that atleast a departmental man was available and he could have been examined besides the Food Inspector to proved the case of the prosecution. In this respect it may be observed that the said point was not raised by the revisionist either before the learned Judicial Magistrate or before the Sessions Judge. It can not be said at this stage that whether the said departmental man was available or not whether there was any cogent reason for not examining him. 6. In this respect it may be observed that the said point was not raised by the revisionist either before the learned Judicial Magistrate or before the Sessions Judge. It can not be said at this stage that whether the said departmental man was available or not whether there was any cogent reason for 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 the Public Analyst was sent to the revisionist after expiry of 8 days, hence there was no proper compliance of the rule 9A 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 with a period of 10 days. There was, therefore, 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 serve out the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him.