JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.—This revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 7.3.1989 passed by Xth Additional District Judge, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 1988 and against the judgment and order dated 7.3.1988 passed by A.C.J.M., Varanasi in Criminal Trial No. 143 of 1985 convicting the revisionist under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo six month R.I. and imposing fine to the tune of Rs. 1000/- with defaulting clause. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Sri Nand Kumar Singh, Food Inspector on 20.11.1983 at 11:00 a.m., went to the shop of the revisionist situated at Ram Raipur, Police Station Jansa, Varanasi and found that the revisionist was selling pulses, rice and mustered oil etc. without having any licence to sell them. The Food Inspector introduced himself to the revisionist and purchased 375 gm. of mustered oil for Rs. 8.25/- after giving him cash payment and giving the receipt to the revisionist. He prepared three samples of mustered oil in the presence of the revisionist and fixed the wrapper. Lable and code slip was pasted on them and they were sealed as per rules on the spot. The accused refused to sign on the documents. Other people present on the spot except Moti Lal, refused to sign the document or reveal the identity. One sealed sample bottle was sent to the analyst at Lucknow for examination who vide his report dated 7.1.1984 found Argemone oil and 6% Linseed oil in the sample. Thus, the sample being adulterated permission to prosecution was obtained from Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi and complaint was filed on which the accused has been tried under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. The accused appeared before the trial Court and denied the charges levelled against him and on the application of the accused, the second bottle of sample of mustered oil was sent to Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata and in the report, Argemone oil was not found in the sample, infact castor oil was present in the sample and even according to Central Food Laboratory, the sample was found to be adulterated. 4. The prosecution examined as PW-1 Nand Kumar Singh, Food Inspector, PW-2 Rajendra Kumar Singh, Food Clerk and proved its documents. 5. 4. The prosecution examined as PW-1 Nand Kumar Singh, Food Inspector, PW-2 Rajendra Kumar Singh, Food Clerk and proved its documents. 5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the accused has denied all the charges and stated that no sample of oil was taken from his shop. He said that he would produce the evidence in support of his defence but he failed to produce any of the evidence. 6. After perusal of all the evidences on record, learned C.J.M., Varanasi found the accused guilty and sentenced him to six months R.I. and Rs. 1000/- fine with defaulting clause. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist filed an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 105/1988. But the appellate Court after hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist and perusing the record, dismissed the appeal. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has come up in this revision before this Court. 9. Heard Sri S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 10. It is well-settled law that the evidence in revision as far as it relates to the factual aspects cannot be reassessed as can be done in appeal because it will be beyond the jurisdiction of the revisional Court, to reassess the evidence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Putthumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, AIR 1999 SC 981 , has held that the High Court while hearing the revisions does not work as Appellate Court and will not re-appreciate the evidence, unless some glaring feature is pointed out which may show that injustice has been done. 11. As a broad proposition, the interference may be justified (a) where the decision is grossly erroneous; (b) where there is no compliance with the provisions of law; (c) where the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on the evidence; (d) where the material evidence of the parties has not been considered; (e) where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. 12. Thus, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, it will be beyond its power and jurisdiction to re-assess the evidence. 13. 12. Thus, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, it will be beyond its power and jurisdiction to re-assess the evidence. 13. In another case in State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale and others, AIR 1993 SC 1126 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that generally speaking, concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two Courts below are not to be inferred with by the High Court in absence of any special circumstances or unless there is any perversity. 14. Considering the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction it is clear that the evidence recorded by the trial Court and well discussed and appreciated by the Appellate Court is not required to be again re-appreciated on the point raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 15. It has been argued on behalf of the revisionist that compliance of Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has not been done. Section 10 (7) runs as follows : “10. Powers of food inspectors.—(7) Where the food inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1), sub-section (2), sub-section (4) or sub-section (6), he shall [call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures.” 16. But nowhere in the section has been mentioned that if the Food Inspector does not get witnesses all his evidence will be disbelieved. The Food Inspector has specifically mentioned in Exhibit Ka-2 that the seller Amar Nath, accused has refused to put his signature on this document which has been enough compliance. 17. A very stout argument has been placed on behalf of the revisionist is that, the reports sent by the Public Analyst and Central Food Laboratory are contradictory. The report sent by Public Analyst is Exhibit Ka-4 and the report sent by Central Food Laboratory is Exhibit Ka-7. Counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that in the report of the Public Analyst, Argemone oil and 6% Linseed oil were found, whereas, in the report of Central Food Laboratory, the test for Argemone oil was found negative and test for castor oil was found positive but the sample of mustered oil was found adulterated. 18. In this regard, I would like to refer Section 13(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which runs as follows : “ 13. 18. In this regard, I would like to refer Section 13(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which runs as follows : “ 13. Report of public analyst.—(3) The certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory[under sub-section (2B)] shall supersede the report given by the public analyst under sub-section (1).” 19. It is argued by counsel for the revisionist, that he did not receive any copy of the report, has no legs to stand. The aforesaid variation in the reports of the Public Analyst and the Central Food Laboratory are concerned, it would be important to mention that the revisionist himself chose the option for sending one bottle of sample to the Central Food Laboratory for re-test of the sample. Thus, he cannot raise the argument that he did not get copy of report of Public Analyst. Even the report of the Central Food Laboratory shows that the sample was adulterated. 20. Law is well-settled on the point that if the revisionist facing trial under Food Adulteration Act, chooses to send one sample to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis and if the Central Food Laboratory concludes that the sample is adulterated, the revisionist cannot claim that the sample was not taken at all or was taken in violation of the rules as procedure prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 21. Once the report of Central Food Laboratory is available on record, the revisionist has to be tried on the basis of that report and is not entitled to take benefit of any minor difference between the report of the Central Food Laboratory and that of the Public Analyst. 22. Going through the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act makes it clear that the Court can always discard the report of the Central Food Laboratory as unreliable but the report cannot be discarded merely because the same is not in consonance with the report of the Public Analyst. Moreover, since the report of the Central Food Laboratory was obtained at the instance of the revisionist it does not at all suggest that mustered oil was not adulterated and was standard oil. 23. Sub Section (3) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides that the certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory would supersede the report given by the Public Analyst. 23. Sub Section (3) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides that the certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory would supersede the report given by the Public Analyst. Thus, both the reports show that the sample is adulterated and minor variation or difference in both the reports could not make the sample to be not adulterated. 24. Upon careful consideration of the material placed on record and in view of the discussion made above, I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and the revisionist has miserably fail to show that the Courts below have not considered any material evidence or have misread the evidences on record. 25. The revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 26. Accordingly the revision is dismissed. 27. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 28. Let, lower Court record be send back to the Court below coupled with copy of this order for doing needful. —————