JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J.—The petitioner Jeet Ram was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter to be called as "the Act" and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in case of default to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months, by the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, vide Judgment dated 27th of December, 1996. Thereafter, he filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan by his judgment dated 17.10.1997, thereby affirming his conviction and sentence. In these circumstances, he has filed the present revision petition. 2. The case against the petitioner as set up before the learned Court below is that he was running p canteen within the factory premises of M/s. Drish Shoes Ltd., Bharatgarh Road at Rajpur, Teh. Nalagarh, Distt. Solan at the relevant time. On 11.6.1994 at about 8.30 a.m., Shri T.S. Verma, the then Food Inspector, inspected the canteen of the petitioner. He found that the latter was having 20 kgs. of Cows milk in a container for sale. Out of that quantity, 750 milk litres of milk was purchased by the said Food Inspector from the petitioner for the purpose of analysis, after duly serving notice on him and on payment of its price in cash i.e. Rs. 6/-. 3. As is apparent from the record as well as the impugned judgments, the said Food Inspector went through all the formalities as required under the Act and the Rules thereof. At this stage, it will only be pertinent to mention here, that during this entire process, two other persons were present, namely, Mehar Chand and Badar Ali, as they had been joined by the Food Inspector for that purpose. After taking the sample, one part of it was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh, while the other two parts were deposited in the office of the Local Health Authority, Solan. The Public Analyst, after analysis, found the sample of milk adulterated, for the reasons that it was found deficient in milk fat by 91% and milk solids not fat by 52% of the minimum prescribed standard. The Public Analyst, after analysis, found the sample of milk adulterated, for the reasons that it was found deficient in milk fat by 91% and milk solids not fat by 52% of the minimum prescribed standard. After the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the Local Health Authority, Solan duly gave sanction to the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence, resulting in filing of the complaint, which ultimately culminated in his conviction and sentence as afore-mentioned. 4. At the trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses, besides relying on relevant documentary evidence. In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C, the petitioner denied the prosecution allegations. His plea was that the milk of which the sample was taken from him, was not meant for sale. His case was that the Food Inspector had taken sample from the mixture of milk and water which had been kept on the furnace in anticipation of preparing 200 cups of tea which were to be served to customer?, i.e. the employees of the factory where the canteen of the petitioner was situated. In his defence, the petitioner also examined one witness at the trial. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri R.K. Gautam and the learned Additional Advocate-General on behalf of the State and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the petitioner is well based. The Food Inspector appeared in support of the complaint as PW-1. He deposed that the milk in question kept by the petitioner at the time of taking the sample was not meant for preparation of tea, but was actually kept for its sale. He denied the suggestion that the container of the milk in question had been kept on the furnace by the petitioner for boiling the mixture of tea and milk, as alleged on behalf of the defence. The searching cross-examination to which the Food Inspector was put by the defence Counsel at the time of his testimony, does not disclose any credibility gap in his statement in support of the prosecution case. It has not been shown that he had any reason to falsely implicate the petitioner. 6. The searching cross-examination to which the Food Inspector was put by the defence Counsel at the time of his testimony, does not disclose any credibility gap in his statement in support of the prosecution case. It has not been shown that he had any reason to falsely implicate the petitioner. 6. As rightly concluded by both the learned Courts below, the testimony of the Food Inspector, i.e. P.W.-1 T.S. Verma stands fully corroborated substantially by the statement of PW-4 Mehar Chand, being the Peon of the office of the Food Inspector. This witness has also stated that the milk of which sample was taken had been kept in the container for the purpose of selling it. This oral testimony stands further corroborated from the Panchnama Ex. PC which is purported to be signed by the petitioner. 7. Insofar as the statement of defence witness DW-1 is concerned, in his examination-in-chief itself, it has come out that when the Food Inspector reached the canteen for the purpose of taking the sample, the milk and the tea were kept separately and before they could be mixed, the Food Inspector arrived on the spot. In other words, the statement of the defence witness DW-1 Jeet Ram itself is consistent with the prosecution case and does not help the plea of the petitioner whatsoever. It is, thus, manifestly clear that there is no infirmity in the case against the petitioner so as to warrant his acquittal in the present revision petition. 8. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that at the time of taking the sample of milk from the petitioner, the Food Inspector did not join any independant witness, although, it has come in the cross-examination as PW-1, that at that time 5-6 employees of the factory were present. He has sought to support this submission by citing a decision of this Court, namely, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shri Nazir Singh, (Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1987, decided on July 26, 1990.) 9. There is no merit in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as under Section 10(7) of the Act, the Food Inspector is required to call one or more persons to be present at the time when a sample of article of food, i.e. mlik in the present case, is taken and then to obtain his or their signatures. Admittedly, as is borne out from the record, at the time of taking the sample, one Badar AH was present and his signatures were obtained on the Panchnama Ex. PC. It has also come on record that though cited as a witness, the said Badar Ali had to be given up as his whereabouts were not known. This fact has even come in the statement of DW-1 Jeet Ram, according to which, the said Badar Ali had left the service of the company. Obviously, in these circumstances, he could not be examined for reasons beyond the control of the prosecution. 10. A perusal of the decision of this Court cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and referred to above, indicates that the main point involved in that case was as to whether before taking the sample of milk, the same was properly and thoroughly stirred to make it homogeneous. On the facts of that case, it was found that the evidence on the said aspect was thoroughly unconvincing. No doubt, the argument was raised in that case that the Food Inspector did not associate independent witnesses while taking the sample. It was found that the Food Inspector had not given any explanation why independent witnesses were not associated. The facts in the present case are, however, different where, as already mentioned above, Badar Ali, independent witness was joined at the time of taking the sample and his signatures had also been obtained on the Panchnama Ex. PC. He could not be examined because his whereabouts were not known, he having left the service of the company, on the premises of which the canteen of the petitioner was situated, thereafter. It is, thus, manifest that the decision of this Court in the above-mentioned case as relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has no bearing on the facts of the present case. 11. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. The bail and surety bonds furnished by the petitioner in the present revision petition are hereby cancelled. He be taken into custody forthwith. Revision petition dismissed.