Judgment K.C.Gupta, J. 1. This revision is directed by Faquir Chand, petitioner, against the judgment dated 13.7.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby he dismissed the appeal and maintained the judgment and order dated 8.3.1999 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, whereby she found the petitioner guilty and convicted him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to undergo RI for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo RI for one month. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the Government Food Inspector, on 30.12.1992 at about 10 A.M. at G.T. Road, Adarsh Cinema, Hansi, intercepted the petitioner who was having in his possession about 10 kgs. of buffalo milk for public sale contained in a drum. The Government Food Inspector expressed his intention to take a sample of the buffalo milk and as such gave notice in writing. He purchased 750 mls. of buffalo milk from the petitioner after stirring the whole milk properly and making it homogeneous for analysis purposes, after making payment of Rs. 5.25. The sample so purchased was divided into three equal parts and put into three dry and clean bottles. The bottles were duly labelled and sealed and one sample bottle was sent alongwith memo form VII to the Public Analyst for analysis. Upon receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the sample was found to be adulterated as milk fat was deficient by 40% of the minimum prescribed standard. Accordingly, the complaint was lodged. 3. The petitioner did not exercise his option under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, "the Act"). The complaint was ordered to be tried as warrant case vide order dated 13.10.1998. 4. Having made out a prima facie case, the petitioner was charged under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. After charge, the Food Inspector submitted himself for further examination and also produced PW2-Sant Lal, Clerk, LHA and PW-3 Dr. Surinder Singh. 4. Having made out a prima facie case, the petitioner was charged under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. After charge, the Food Inspector submitted himself for further examination and also produced PW2-Sant Lal, Clerk, LHA and PW-3 Dr. Surinder Singh. After the closure of the prosecution case, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied allegations of the prosecution and in defence he examined DW-1 Puran Singh, Puran Singh stated that the milk was not meant for sale but the petitioner was taking the milk to his residence for a function. 6. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and Government Food Inspector, the petitioner was found guilty and convicted and sentenced by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate as stated above vide order dated 8.3.1999. 7. The petitioner filed appeal against the said judgment and order which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 13.7.2001. 8. Still dis-satisfied the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 9. I have heard Sh. N.D. Dhillon, proxy counsel for Mr. M.S. Sidhu, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana, for the State and carefully gone through the file. 10. Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act and as such the petitioner was entitled to be acquitted on this score. In my opinion, the contention of learned Counsel is not tenable. It is in evidence of PW-1 Government Food Inspector and PW3-Dr. Surinder Singh that efforts were made to join the independent witness but no person was prepared to become a witness. It is not in dispute that there is a general apathy on the part of the public to become witnesses due to the fear of the accused or due to the harassment which they had to suffer by attending the Court on various dates. Therefore, it was not surprising if none had come forward to become a witness. Moreover, the statement of the Food Inspector is corroborated by PW3-Dr. Surinder Singh, who is not interested in any manner in Government Food Inspector. He is to be treated more or less as an independent witness. 11. Therefore, it was not surprising if none had come forward to become a witness. Moreover, the statement of the Food Inspector is corroborated by PW3-Dr. Surinder Singh, who is not interested in any manner in Government Food Inspector. He is to be treated more or less as an independent witness. 11. Counsel for the petitioner next contended that there was non-compliance with Section 13(2) of the Act inasmuch as the petitioner was deprived of his right to get the sample re-analysed. Again, the contention of the learned Counsel is not tenable. In order to prove that the report of the Public Analyst alongwith letter informing the petitioner that if he so wanted, he could exercise his option under Section 13(2) of the Act and could get the second sample analysed from the Central Laboratory, was sent to him. The Food Inspector had proved the notice Ex.P1, AD receipt Ex.P4, registered envelope Ex.P3 and postal receipt Ex.P2. However, the registered envelope was received unserved although it was sent on correct address. Since the registered envelope was sent to the petitioner on correct address so, the presumption is that it was received by him. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the said letter was not received by the petitioner, then a perusal of the file shows that the petitioner had appeared in the Court on 25.5.1993. After his appearance in the Court, he did not make an application immediately for sending the second sample for re-analysis to the Central Food Laboratory as he was not satisfied with the result of the report but he had not done so. Having not done so, it appeared that he had accepted the report of the Public Analyst and as such, he cannot now say that no proper opportunity was given to him to send the second sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. 12. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner was not a milk vendor but on 30.12.1992 when the sample was taken, he was carrying milk in a Tokni for taking it to the houses of his relative Puran Singh, DW-1 as there was a private function in his house. To corroborate this fact, he had examined, DW-1 Puran Singh. It is in evidence that he was carrying a measuring jug with him. If he had been carrying 10 kgs. To corroborate this fact, he had examined, DW-1 Puran Singh. It is in evidence that he was carrying a measuring jug with him. If he had been carrying 10 kgs. of milk for a private purpose, then the measuring jug would not have been with him. This fact only shows that the milk was meant for public sale and it is a made up story that it was meant for giving to his relative Puran Singh. No independent witness has been examined by the petitioner to prove that there was birthday of the son of Puran Singh on 30.12.1992. The birth certificate has also not been placed on record to prove this fact. Thus, the statement of PW-1 Puran Singh on this score cannot be believed. 13. Lastly, it has been contended that the milk was not properly stirred and made homogeneous before taking the sample. Again this contention of learned Counsel cannot be believed. There is testimony of PW-1-Government Food Inspector and PW3-Dr. Surinder Singh that the milk was properly stirred and made homogeneous and representative of the whole of the milk with a measuring jug before taking the sample. Therefore, milk was properly stirred. It is observed in Ram Kishan v. State of Haryana, 1997 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 329 that when the milk is contained in a drum, the same should be stirred and made homogeneous with a clean stick or a milk measurement or a plunger. 14. No other point has been urged before me. 15. The up-spot of the above discussion is that there is no force in the revision petition as the judgments of the Courts below cannot be termed as perverse or illegal. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.