JUDGMENT : V.K. Sharma, J. The challenge herein in this criminal revision petition u/s 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr. P.C.'), is against the judgment dated 01.07.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2001, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the convict', has been dismissed and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1000/- (Rs. One Thousand) and in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months imposed upon him by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P., vide judgment dated 20.03.2001, for the offence u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act'), for selling adulterated and misbranded article of food, i.e. 'Mamta Reori', in contravention of the provisions of Rules 32 (b) and (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short 'the Rules'), has been maintained. Shorn of details facts of the case are that on 02.01.1998, at about 12.30 PM, Food Inspector, Shri G.R. Puri (PW-1), inspected the grocery shop of the convict in village Chandpur in the presence of Shri Krishan Lal (PW-3). On inspection, it was found that 35 packets of 'Mamta Reori' were kept in the shop for sale. These packets were purported to have been manufactured by Golden Confectionery, Ludhiana. Out of which, the Food Inspector purchased three packets, each weighing 400 grams for Rs. 30/-. The sample packets were wrapped, fastened and sealed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. One part of the sample along with Form-VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat, in a sealed parcel by registered post. Copy of Form-VII along with specimen seal impression was also sent separately by registered post in a sealed envelope. The remaining two parts of the sample along with two copies of Form-VII and seal impression were deposited with the Local Health Authority (LHA), Bilaspur. The Public Analyst submitted report Ex. P-9 and opined as under:- the names of the ingredients are not mentioned and name and address of the manufacturer mentioned as "Golden Confectionery Ludhiana" is a incomplete address. Contents of the sample contain 0.69% ash insoluble in dilute hydrochloric acid and have gritty taste. The sample of Mamta sweets (Mamta Reori) is, therefore, misbranded and adulterated. 2. P-9 and opined as under:- the names of the ingredients are not mentioned and name and address of the manufacturer mentioned as "Golden Confectionery Ludhiana" is a incomplete address. Contents of the sample contain 0.69% ash insoluble in dilute hydrochloric acid and have gritty taste. The sample of Mamta sweets (Mamta Reori) is, therefore, misbranded and adulterated. 2. On getting written consent from the Chief Medical Officer, the Food Inspector filed complaint in the Court. 3. Pursuant to an application u/s 13(2) of the Act moved by the convict the second part of the sample was sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Pune, which submitted report Ex. P-13, which is as under: TABLE Appearance: Off white circular in shap sweets received in sealed and labeled polythene bag. Label declaration : Mamta Sweets' permitted colours and flavours used Net wt. 200 gms. MRP Rs. 10/- Mfg. date Dec. 96 Code No. 01/96 Mfg by Golden Confectionary Ludhiana Ingredients - not mentioned. Name and complete address of mfg. Not mentioned. Total ash Ash insol. Test for colour Organo leptic test. In dil HCL and I am of the opinion that the sample shows presence of gritty matter when tasted organolaptically hence it is unfit for human consumption. Also the label of the sample does not indicate ingredients and complete address of manufacturer hence it contravenes rule 32 (b) and (c) of PFA Rules, 1955. 4. The convict did not plead guilty to the notice of accusation served upon him by the learned trial Court and claimed trial. In all three witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant including himself. In his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C., the convict while admitting the material incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence led on behalf of the complainant, raised the defence that report of the Central Food Laboratory, Ex. P.-13, does not relate to the sample of the food item in question. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence. On conclusion of the trial, the convict was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court, which were upheld by the learned first appellate Court, as already noticed. Being aggrieved, he is in revision before this Court. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner (convict) and the learned Dy. Advocate General with the learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent-State and gone through the records. 6. Being aggrieved, he is in revision before this Court. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner (convict) and the learned Dy. Advocate General with the learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent-State and gone through the records. 6. The judgments of the learned Courts below have been challenged on behalf of the convict on four fold grounds. Firstly, that it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the report of the Central Food Laboratory, Ex. P-13 relates to the sample in question. Secondly, no independent witnesses were joined in the proceedings and thereby the same stand vitiated entitling the convict to acquittal. Thirdly, in the absence of any prescribed standard for 'Reori', it cannot be said that the same was adulterated. Lastly, the status of PW-1 Shri G.R. Puri as Food Inspector, is not established on record for lack of the requisite notification of his appointment as such. 7. Conversely, the findings returned by the learned Courts below have been supported on behalf of the respondent-State. 8. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, true it is that the code number and serial number of LHA, i.e. SFD-1, 10/97, do not find mention in the report of the Central Food Laboratory, Ex. P-13. However, the fact remains that when pursuant to the application moved by the convict u/s 13(2) of the Act for getting the second part of the sample analyzed from the Central Food Laboratory, the learned trial Court had directed the LHA to produce the second part of the sample. When the said sample was produced in the Court on 27.06.1998, the same was found to contain the aforesaid code and serial number as is apparent from the proceedings carried out by the learned trial Court in that regard, which are re-produced below in extenso:- Present: Applicant with Sh. R.L. Sharma, Advocate. Sh. G.R. Puri F.I. Sh. Ram Lal Gupta D.A. LHA has produced the second part of sample bearing Code No. SFD-1, Sr. No. 10/97. It bears 4 seals which are intact and tally with the seal impression placed on the file. It has been shown to the ld. Defence csl. and the accused. Accused admits his signature on this part. Now put up for dispatch of this part to Director Central Food Laboratory on 30.6.1998. Part to remain in safe custody of the Reader till then. It has been shown to the ld. Defence csl. and the accused. Accused admits his signature on this part. Now put up for dispatch of this part to Director Central Food Laboratory on 30.6.1998. Part to remain in safe custody of the Reader till then. The accused is further directed to produce a bank draft of Rs. 200/- drawn in f/o. pay and accounts officer Central Food Laboratory Directorate of Health Services Calcutta payable at Calcutta. Applicant will also produce the packing material of sample on the said date. Main case file is fixed for 4.8.1998. Ahlmad will attach this application with main file and put up on 30/6/98. 9. While sending the aforesaid second sample for analysis, the same was sealed with seal of the Court after affixing distinguishing No. 130/1 of 98 and the sealed sample part along with Form-I was in turn sealed in outer cover after affixing distinguishing number as aforesaid. To this effect are the proceedings carried out by the said Court in the aforesaid application on 30.6.1998, which are extracted below:- Present: Shri G.R. Puri, Food Inspector, for State. Applicant Parkash Chand, alongwith Shri R.L. Sharma, Advocate. The applicant has produced demand draft No. 393621 dated 29.6.98 of S SBI Kandraur payable at Calcutta as ordered on the previous date. The reader has produced the second sample part which was kept in his custody on 27.6.1998. It is intact and all right. This part has been sealed with the seal of this Court after affixing distinguishing No. 130/1 of 98. The sealed sample part alongwith form 1 has again been sealed in outer cover after affixing distinguishing No. A copy of Form, enclosed with sample is retained on the Court file. A copy of form 1 alongwith specimen seal impression has been sealed in a envelope alongwith the Bank Draft detailed above. A copy of form 1 alongwith specimen seal impression has also been retained in the Court file. Let the parcel and the sealed envelope be sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory, Pune 411001 by registered parcel and registered post. The postal receipts be placed in the Court file. Accused will bear the expenses of the dispatch of the sample. The report of Director Central Food Laboratory be awaited for 4.8.1998. 10. Let the parcel and the sealed envelope be sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory, Pune 411001 by registered parcel and registered post. The postal receipts be placed in the Court file. Accused will bear the expenses of the dispatch of the sample. The report of Director Central Food Laboratory be awaited for 4.8.1998. 10. Second part of the sample was sent by the learned trial curt to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis vide letter dated 30.6.1998, copies of which are available on the trial Court record at pages 56 and 57, a perusal whereof would go to show that the aforesaid distinguishing number on the container and outer covering has been mentioned therein as 130/1 of 98, which in turn stood incorporated in the report of the Central Food Laboratory, Ex. P-13, in the third line from the top. 11. Thus, it stands convincingly proved that the sample analyzed vide report Ex. P-13, submitted by the Central Food Laboratory, was in fact the sample in question and there can be no doubt about it in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. It is equally true that in the report of the Central Food Laboratory Ex. P-13, there is reference to Code No. 01/96, but the fact remains that the same denotes the code number printed on the packet of the sample of 'Reori' by the manufacturer and is not the code number of the LHA. 13. In view of the above, the convict cannot derive any benefit from the authority relied upon by him reported as Vasamsetty Satyanarayana Vs. State of A.P., Vasamsetty Satyanarayana Vs. State of A.P., (1999) 2 ALT(Cri) 79 , wherein Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has held as under vide para 9 of the report:- Further Rule 15 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules indicates that the Code number and serial number should be specifically mentioned in the sample and also in the report sent by Analyst. In this case, the sample bore the Code No. F-923 and Sl. No. 64/ 92. However, in Ex. P-13 which is the Analyst report, no code number is mentioned. Hence, it is doubtful whether the report pertains to the sample sent by P.W. 1 in this case. In this case, the sample bore the Code No. F-923 and Sl. No. 64/ 92. However, in Ex. P-13 which is the Analyst report, no code number is mentioned. Hence, it is doubtful whether the report pertains to the sample sent by P.W. 1 in this case. In similar circumstances, this Court in Khem Chand v. State of A.P., (1997 (1) ALT (Crl.) 293) held that if there is discrepancy between the code number of the sample and also the code number given in the report of the Analyst that discrepancy should accrue to the accused. Following this judgment, I am of the opinion that in this case also the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt. 14. While adverting to the second ground, it is a settled proposition of law that conviction can be based on the testimony of the official witnesses, if otherwise found to be cogent and reliable. In the present case, both PW-1 Shri G.R. Puri, Food Inspector and PW-3, Shri Krishan Lal are the official witnesses. However, no ill will or enmity is alleged against them towards the convict. Furthermore, it is recited in panchnama Ex. P-3 that some other persons were asked to join as witnesses, but they declined and also did not disclose their addresses. Both, PW-1 Shri G.R. Puri, Food Inspector and PW-3 Shri Krishan Lal have also stated about it. In such circumstances, non joining of independent witnesses during the proceedings is not material. 15. As far as the third ground regarding the prescribed standard is concerned, suffice it to say that as per report of the Central Food Laboratory, Ex. P-13, the sample has been held to be unfit for human consumption owing to "presence of gritty material when tested organolaptically" as well as in contravention of Rules 32 (b) and (c) of the Rules, as "the label of the sample does not indicate ingredients and complete address of manufacturer" and not on account of lacking in prescribed standard. Even otherwise, the report of the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the public analyst. It being so, the convict can also not derive any benefit out of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Municipal Board, Lucknow Vs. Bhagwan Das, Municipal Board, Lucknow Vs. Bhagwan Das, AIR 1959 All 500 (head note-c) (para 15). 16. It being so, the convict can also not derive any benefit out of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Municipal Board, Lucknow Vs. Bhagwan Das, Municipal Board, Lucknow Vs. Bhagwan Das, AIR 1959 All 500 (head note-c) (para 15). 16. Now while adverting to the last ground, it would be seen that status of PW-1 Shri G.R. Puri, as Food Inspector, was not challenged on behalf of the convict during trial or appeal. It being so, the convict cannot be permitted to raise such ground at this belated stage. Accordingly, the authority relied upon by the convict in this regard reported as Sadhram v. The State of M.P., 1994 (2) 1, which also lays down that a ground not raised either before the trial Court or appellate Court cannot be agitated before the High Court in revision, does not go to advance his case. In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed being without any merit.