JUDGMENT & ORDER : This revision petition is filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order, dated 15.09.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Criminal Appeal No. 28/2006 affirming the judgment and order, dated 20.06.2006, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat in CR Case No. 02/2004 convicting and sentencing the accused-revision petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with a default clause. 2. None appears for the petitioner on call. 3. Ms. M Bhattacharyya, learned counsel has submitted before this Court that the accused-revision petitioner has disengaged them and some other counsel has been engaged. Therefore, they are not participating in the hearing of the case. 4. State respondent is represented by Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. I have perused the petition as well as the judgments of the learned trial court and the learned appellate court and also the record of the learned trial court containing the evidence of the witnesses. 6. The fact leading to the aforesaid complaint case is that, on 25.05.2004, the Food Inspector-complainant along with his office peon had visited the grocery shop, under the name and style, M/s Ashok Stores, situated at Negheriting Chariali under Dergaon Police Station of Golaghat district. In course of regular inspection, on suspicion, he collected samples of turmeric powder kept for sale for human consumption in the said shop. After introducing himself to the vendor-proprietor of the shop, Sri Ganesh Sonari and after taking action under the relevant law under Form-VI, he collected 750 grams of turmeric powder as sample making payment therefore, vide Ext-1. Ext-2 is the payment acknowledgment receipt of Rs. 37.50 being the price of the sample so collected. The sample was examined by the Public Analyst, Assam, and found the same to be adulterated. Thereafter, after obtaining necessary consent from the competent authority, the prosecution was launched against the accused-revision petitioner. Notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the PFA Act) was also issued upon the accused-revision petitioner. The accused-revision petitioner did not ask for examination of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory. 7. Thereafter, after obtaining necessary consent from the competent authority, the prosecution was launched against the accused-revision petitioner. Notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the PFA Act) was also issued upon the accused-revision petitioner. The accused-revision petitioner did not ask for examination of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory. 7. On perusal of the grounds taken in the revision petition, assailing the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court, it appears that the grounds taken by the accused-revision petitioner are that the prosecution did not examine any independent witness as required under Section 10(7) of the PFA Act and that the learned trial court misinterpreted the provision of Section 2(m)(a) of the PFA Act and therefore arrived at an incorrect decision to hold that the samples taken was adulterated, and some other grounds like not taking the sample inconformity with the provisions of Rule 14 of the PFA Act, etc, etc, 8. I have thoroughly examined the judgments, aforesaid, as well as the evidence on record. 9. The prosecution examined 2 (two) witnesses, i.e., the Food Inspector-complainant and his office peon who accompanied him as witnesses to the notice under Form-VI of the PFA Act as well as in taking the sample. The defense also examined 2 (two) witnesses. The accused-revision petitioner was himself examined as DW1. 10. On perusal of the evidence on record, it is found that there is no dispute that the PW1 inspected the grocery shop, M/s Ashok Store, as stated in the petition of complaint. The notice under Form-VI makes it clearly appear that sample was taken from the accused-revision petitioner being the owner of the aforesaid shop. The sample was taken in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 of the PFA Rules. There is nothing elicited during the cross-examination of PW1 or PW2 that any of the provisions of the Rules for collection of sample was violated rather from the evidence of PW1, he appears to be assertive so far compliance of the provisions in respect of collection, packing and sending of the sample to the Public Analyst is concerned. There is nothing elicited during the cross-examination of PW1 or PW2 that any of the provisions of the Rules for collection of sample was violated rather from the evidence of PW1, he appears to be assertive so far compliance of the provisions in respect of collection, packing and sending of the sample to the Public Analyst is concerned. The evidence clearly shows that he divided the turmeric powder, purchased as sample, in three parts and kept the 1st part for examination by the Public Analyst, 2nd part was kept in the office of the Joint Director Health Services and the remaining 3rd part was send to the Court. 11. After receipt of notice under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act, there was no prayer made by the accused-revision petitioner to examine the aforesaid sample by the Central Food Laboratory. That being so, he appears to be content with the report of the Public Analyst which was communicated to him with the notice under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act. 12. The plea taken by the accused-revision petitioner is that the sample was not collected from the shop rather it was collected from his residence where he kept the said sample for the marriage of his son. But, as indicated above, the Form-VI notice makes it clear that the sample was taken from the premises of M/s Ashok Store on payment and the accused-revision petitioner acknowledged receipt of the payment vide Ext-2 where he has put his signature thereon. That being so, the stand taken by the defence in his evidence that the sample of turmeric powder was not collected from his aforesaid shop has no leg to stand. 13. So far non compliance of the provisions of Section 10(7) of the PFA Act is concerned, this Court. The evidence of PW2, the office peon accompanied the complainant/Food Inspector to the shop aforesaid, cannot be disbelieved merely because he is attached to the office of the Food Inspector, in the absence of any evidence to suggest that he has anything personal or any enemity so far the accused-revision petitioner is concerned. There is also no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 that none wanted to be witness. 14. The evidence of DW2 is that he was available in the shop aforesaid although he was not made a witness. There is also no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 that none wanted to be witness. 14. The evidence of DW2 is that he was available in the shop aforesaid although he was not made a witness. His presence in the shop is a question of fact which needs to be corroborated by supportive evidence. That being so, in the absence of any such corroborative evidence as regards the fact of his presence, it cannot be believed that he was present there. Even if he was present there, not making himself as a witness in respect of collection of sample would not have any effect in the merit of the case as the documentary evidence in Exts-1 and 2 make it clearly appear that the sample was collected from his shop only. That apart, from the evidence of Food Inspector/complainant as PW1 that he attempted to procure independent witness but could not find one cannot be disbelieved in the absence of any facts shown to the effect that he had any intention to rope the accused-revision petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence. The ground taken that the learned trial court misinterpreted the provisions of Section 2(m)(a) of the PFA Act cannot sustain in view of the fact that the accused-revision petitioner did not opt for a second opinion from the Central Food Laboratory inspite of receipt of the notice under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act. 15. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence on record, it is found that the judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court is based on evidence on record and there is no apparent illegality and impropriety found, and therefore, no interference is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court in respect of the order recording of the accused-revision petitioner. No interference is called for in respect of the sentence as the statutory prescribed minimum punishment has been imposed upon the accused-revision petitioner. 16. Therefore, the criminal revision petition is dismissed on merit. 17. The accused-revision petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial court to serve out the sentence. 18. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.