R. P. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the confirming judgment dated 22-6-1993 in Cr. Appeal No. 128/88 passed by 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilaspur whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioner made by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 432/87 vide judgment dated 8-6-1988 was confirmed. The petitioner was convicted u/s. 7 (1) r/w S. 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the 'act'), for selling a sample of turmeric powder to Food Inspector P. W. 1 on 23-6-1987 in the area of Pendra. The sample was found to be adulterated by Central Food Laboratory in so far as it was found to be having foreign material (starch originating from rice ). No other adulteration was found although the Public Analyst on his analysis had found it adulterated because of presence of non-permitted colour. ( 2 ) RELIANCE placed by the trial Magistrate was on the evidence of Food Inspector Shri I. A. Pasha (P. W. 1) about the purchasing sample as also on report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad. ( 3 ) NOTICE had been given to the accused-petitioner u/s. 13 (2) of the Act r/w Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rule and after that notice the accused had applied to trial Magistrate to have the other part of the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis, that is how the report of the Central Food Laboratory Ex. P/16 was received. ( 4 ) THE Sessions Court had confirmed the finding of the trial Magistrate. ( 5 ) THE assertion of learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the difference in the two reports, i. e. one of the public analyst Ex. P/12 and of the Director Central Food Laboratory Ex. P/16 suggests that the sample taken was not representative, that reports are contradictory in so far as the Public Analyst finds presence of impermissible colour while the Director, Central Food Laboratory does not find so, but, finds presence of foreign starch in violation of Rule 44-H of the PFA Rule. It is argued that no reliance should be placed on any of these reports. In any case it is doubtful whether sample was proper. It is argued that no reliance should be placed on any of these reports. In any case it is doubtful whether sample was proper. Reliance is placed on a single Bench judgment of this Court cited at 1985 EFR 437 titled Mahadev v. Nawab Khan which was a case of sampling of DHANIA powder and the report of Central Food Laboratory was different from the report of Public Analyst on certain aspects and moisture contents, total ash contents insoluble in dilute HCL. Learned Judge inferred on this violation, that the sample could not be said to be the representative of the whole material and so benefit was given to the accused. ( 6 ) ON the same premises, counsel for the petitioner urges that even in the present case similar inference should be drawn. ( 7 ) SECTION 13 (3) of the Act lays down that the certificate issued by the Director, Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2-B) shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst under sub-section (1) of S. 13. ( 8 ) THUS, the law is clear. The report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Public Analyst. It has always been only in some cases of liquid food where some contents are in suspension state, such as milk, that the theory of representative sample was applied. This was considered just and proper as in a settled condition, the suspended matter may settle down due to gravitational force at lower level of the containerand the contents of the upper level and the lower level may be different unless the whole stuff is churned properly. So that was the reason of applicability of principle of representative sample. ( 9 ) THIS, however, cannot be applied to solids in whatever form including the powder particularly for those adulterations which are prohibited. The report of Public Analyst in such samples cannot be taken into consideration even for urging whether the sample was representative or not as that theory cannot be applied. ( 10 ) RULE 44 (h) of P. F. A. Rules, 1955 prohibits selling of turmeric powder with any foreign starch. The fact that the sample contains rice starch has to be accepted from the report of Director, Central Food Laboratory finally. This supersedes the report of the public analyst. So there was violation of this Rule 44 (h) by the accused. The fact that the sample contains rice starch has to be accepted from the report of Director, Central Food Laboratory finally. This supersedes the report of the public analyst. So there was violation of this Rule 44 (h) by the accused. The precedent cited by learned counsel does not help in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 11 ) THIS Court finds that the finding of guilt regarding selling of an adulterated sample of turmeric powder by the petitioner suffers from no infirmity. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner lastly vehemently argued that the petitioner should not be sent to jail as he was in custody for 10 days after the decision of the appeal by the Sessions Court and he has paid a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and the fine may be enhanced, since 12 years has passed after taking the sample and six years has passed even after the judgment of the appellate Court. No doubt the prosecution in this case was started in 1988 but the conviction was made in the same year and the petitioner was sentenced to two years R. I. and fine, when the appeal was filed, which of course came up for hearing in 1993 and was dismissed then only. But, the conviction and sentence was confirmed. Thereafter, the petitioner availed of this opportunity to file revision petition. Of course six years have passed, but, these circumstancs do not entitle him to the exceptional relief against the mandatory punishment provided in the statute. That course has been adopted by the Supreme Court in exceptional cases where the principle of 'fair trial' appeared to have been violated because of inordinate delay in trial which in those cases pended even after 20 years and the appeals were pending for upward of decade before the final Court itself. I do not see that the principle of 'just and fair trial' can be said to have been violated in the present case due to lapse of time. ( 13 ) FOR the above discussion the mandatory minimum sentence has to be suffered by the petitioner, but, the question is whether the sentence awarded to him by the two Courts below i. e. two years R. I. should be maintained. The minimum sentence provided is six months. In this case the adulteration was with another food stuff, mainly rice starch. The minimum sentence provided is six months. In this case the adulteration was with another food stuff, mainly rice starch. There is no report that it can be harmful to health. So minimum sentence in the facts and circumstances of the present case would meet the ends of justice. The sentence of the petitioner is, therefore, reduced to R. I. for six months and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of fine further R. I. for six months. Petition is accordingly partly accepted. The petitioner shall surrender to his bonds and undergo the remaining part of the sentence. The trial Court shall see that he is arrested and suffer the sentence. A certified copy of the judgment shall be sent to the Courts below. Petition partly allowed. .