ORDER 1.Leave granted. 2. The appellant stands convicted under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act"). He is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months a fine of Rs. 1000. He filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Judge against which he preferred a revision before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh but he did not succeed in that endeavour also. 3. When the appellant approached this Court by special leave, learned counsel highlighted a point that as the food article alleged to have been sold to the Food Inspector was boiled milk the standard fixed for cows milk or buffalos milk or goats milk could not have been adopted. We also felt a doubt initially whether boiled milk was included in the class of milks specified in the Rules under the Act. Hence, we appointed Mr Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel as amicus curiae. We are much benefited by the service rendered by the Senior Counsel and we express our gratitude to him. 4. The substance of the case against the appellant is that on 12-12-1991 PW 1 Food Inspector visited the canteen-cum-tea canteen run by the appellant and took a sample from the mixed "boiled milk" kept in one aluminium can. One part of the sample was sent to the public analyst who after analysis sent his report dated 15-1-1992 opining that the sample was adulterated inasmuch as the "milk fat" was only 2% and "milk solids-not-fat" was 6.7%. A complaint was filed before the trial court and notice was sent to the appellant by registered post as required under Section 13(2) of the Act. 5. Regarding the first contention that boiled milk is not envisaged in the scheme of the prevention of food adulteration law, Mr Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to Article A.l1.0 1.11 under Appendix of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 5. Regarding the first contention that boiled milk is not envisaged in the scheme of the prevention of food adulteration law, Mr Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to Article A.l1.0 1.11 under Appendix of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Relevant part of this article is as under: Class of milk Designations Locality Minimum Percent _________________ Milk fat Milk Solids- Not -fat _________________________________________________________________ * * * Mixed Milk Raw, All India 4.5 8.5 pasteurised, boiled, flavoured and sterilised Mixed milk is defined in Article A.11.01.05-A as follows: "Mixed milk means a combination of milk of cow, buffalo, sheep, goat or any other milch animal and may be a combination of any of these milk which has been made and conforms to the standards given in the table below Item A.11.01.11." 6. Class of milk is distinguished from designation and the particular article in the appendix shown as "mixed milk" is described only as a class of milk. In this context, it is pertinent to point out that the sample itself was taken as though it was "mixed milk boiled". 7. In the light of the above legal position, it is idle to contend that no standard had been specified for mixed milk when it is boiled. It is also idle to contend that in view of the report of the public analyst there is no deficiency in the components of the food article. 8. Mr Pradeep Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant adopted an alternative contention that there was non-compliance with Section 10(7) of the Act inasmuch as the Food Inspector failed to procure the signatures of independent persons when he took the sample. The said contention is not available to the defence as the Food Inspector has given evidence that he really called the persons who were present in the canteen to affix their signatures after witnessing the sample but none of them obliged. A three Judge Bench of this Court has laid down the legal position concerning Section 10(7) of the Act in the case of Ram Labhaya v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi. We may profitably extract the observations made by Honble Y.v. Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was): "The obligation which Section 10(7) casts on the Food Inspector is to call one or more persons to be present when he takes action. of Delhi. We may profitably extract the observations made by Honble Y.v. Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was): "The obligation which Section 10(7) casts on the Food Inspector is to call one or more persons to be present when he takes action. The facts in the instant case show that the Food Inspector did call the neighbouring shopkeepers to witness the taking of the sample but none was willing to cooperate. He could not certainly compel their presence. In such circumstances, the prosecution was relieved of its obligation to cite independent tnesses." 9. We are, therefore, unable to help the appellant on the premise that there was any non-compliance with Section 10(7) of the Act. 10. Mr Pradeep Gupta, learned counsel then made an unsuccessful endeavour to show that Section 13(2) of the Act was not complied with by the Food Inspector. There is no factual foundation for the said contention because the Food Inspector has stated very clearly that as soon as the complaint was filed he sent a copy of the report to the public analyst together with a copy of the complaint to the appellant by registered post and that the appellant had acknowledged the same. That apart, such a point has not been raised in the High Court and it is not available to the appellant particularly at this late stage. 11. Thereafter the contention adopted by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the milk was never intended for sale. Unfortunately, such a contention has not been seriously taken up either in the trial court or in the appellate court or in the High Court. That is a matter for the appellant to adduce evidence particularly when he admitted that he sold the mixed milk to the Food Inspector. True, under proviso to Section 10(2) of the Act it was open to the appellant to show that the primary food in his possession was not intended for sale. Learned counsel for the appellant was not in a position to show us whether any statement was made by him when he was examined by the trial court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the effect that the mixed boiled milk was not kept for sale at all. Learned counsel for the appellant was not in a position to show us whether any statement was made by him when he was examined by the trial court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the effect that the mixed boiled milk was not kept for sale at all. Nor did he adduce any evidence on his part to show that as a matter of practice such a food article was not sold in his canteen and that no patron could ever obtain boiled mixed milk as such from his canteen. Hence, the focus made by learned counsel with all the wits at his command (we say so in fairness to him) did not find any foundation in the fact situation. We are, therefore, unable to help him. 12. Lastly, learned counsel made an endeavour to get the sentence reduced from the minimum prescribed by law. If an accused failed to show that there are special and adequate reasons for reducing the imprisonment part of the sentence from the minimum further down, it is legally difficult for the court to help the appellant. The only special reason attempted by the learned counsel to highlight is that this was mixed boiled milk which perhaps no canteen-owner would venture to sell to his patrons. We do not know whether there was any such practice. Unfortunately, no evidence to that effect had been adduced. In the absence of any special and adequate reason, we are unable to reduce the sentence from the minimum prescribed by the statute which alone had been awarded by the courts below as against the appellant. 13. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellants bail bond will stand cancelled. He is directed to surrender to his bail forthwith.