Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth 'CrPC'), the instant revision has been filed by applicant Roopchand Patel calling in question the impugned judgment affirming his conviction for offence under Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (henceforth 'the Act, 1954') which is punishable under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, 1954. The core facts required for judging the correctness of the impugned judgment are as under:

"(2.1) On 28-5-1997, at 9 A.M., Food Inspector P.D. Pandey (PW-3), after giving notice in writing to the applicant, who was a milk vendor, purchased 750 milliliters of cow-milk by making payment of ` 6 and thereafter dividing the sample then and there in three parts and sealing them after mixing formalin 20 drops of each of the three bottles after leveling them and obtained the signature of the milk vendor/applicant and prepared a Panchnama also and thereafter sent to the public analyst, Bhopal for chemical examination on 29-5-1997 by registered parcel and kept two other samples in the office of Local Health Authority, Raigarh. The Public Analyst, Bhopal sent his report to the Local Health Authority, Raigarh vide letter dated 17-7-1997 received to him on 22-7-1997. The public analyst in his report found the milk adulterated as the milk was having only 3.5% fat and was having 8.04% solid not fat (Ex.P-13), as it was not confirming the standard laid down under the Act, 1954 and the rules made thereunder. The sanction for prosecution was obtained from the competent authority under Section 20(1) of the Act, 1954 on 22-9-1997 and the charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal Court on 29-11-1997 and report of the Public Analyst was sent to the applicant in accordance with Section 13(2) of the Act, 1954 by registered post to the applicant on 2-12-1997.

(2.2) The applicant abjured the guilt and pleaded that the prosecution case is out and out false and he has been falsely implicated in the case.

(2.3) During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined three witnesses and exhibited seventeen documents. Whereas, the defence neither examined any witness nor brought any document on record."

2. The trial Magistrate, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, placing reliance on the report of the Public Analyst finding the cow-milk sold by the applicant adulterated, which is violation of Section 7(i)of the Act, 1954 punishable under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, 1954 convicted the applicant for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of ` 1,000.

3. On appeal filed by the applicant, the Court of Session/appellate Court maintained not only the conviction but also the sentence finding the conviction and sentence in order against which this revision has been preferred as mentioned in opening paragraph.

4. Shri A.N. Bhakta, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in convicting the applicant for the aforesaid offence holding that the applicant is guilty for the offence under Section 7(i) of the Act, 1954. Relying upon Section 11 of the Act, 1954, he would submit that the prosecution has failed to bring home the offence by demonstrating that before taking the sample of cow-milk from the bulk milk the said milk was thoroughly mixed the milk either by stirring it with a long handle dipper or by pouring it with one vessel or other or by shaking it gently and the prosecution has further failed to show so that the milk has no globules or bubbles when the sample was taken. Thus, the entire prosecution case has vitiated on account of non-compliance of Section 11 of the Act, 1954. Therefore, the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded deserves to be set aside.

5. Shri Vivek Singhal,