P.N. Bakshi, J. - (1.) APPLICANT has been convicted under Section 7/1(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo a further period of imprisonment for 2 months. His conviction and sentence has been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Fatehpur. Hence this revision. I have heard learned counsel for the APPLICANT and have also perused the impugned order. I have also carefully examined the record of the case. According to the prosecution case, the Food Inspector, Sri R.S. Kushwaha visited the shop of the APPLICANT in village Kishanpur on October 20, 1976, at 12.15 p.m. lie wag accompanied by another Food Inspector Sri G.D. Singhal. After giving due notice to the APPLICANT, he purchased 450 grams of Dalchini for Rs. 2.25. The same was divided into 3 equal parts and put in 3 separate bottles which were duly wrapped and sealed. Two of these bottles were kept in the office of the Chief Medical Officer and the third was gent by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst (Ex. Ka-3) disclosed that the sample did not contain Dalchini but was cent percent foreign bark. After obtaining sanction from the Chief Medical Officer vide Ex. Ka-3 a complaint was filed against the APPLICANT, who was, thereupon, prosecuted and convicted as above. Both the courts below, on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case, have come to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused has been fully established. They have held the offence of adulteration proved to the hilt. Counsel for the APPLICANT has made a few submissions. To begin with, he attacked the report of the public Analyst dated November 20, 1976 which runs as follows: "Foreign bark 100% Dalchini Nil Volatile Oil 0.5% V|W Microscopy: Structures of inner bark of cinnamon, Zeylancium nees not present." In the opinion of the Public Analyst the sample doe; not contain Dalchini but cent per cert foreign bark. Learned counsel contended that the miscroscopic test which has been conducted according to the report of the Public Analyst was not sufficient to prove the case of adulteration. He prayed that the Public Analyst be sur moned and asked to give details regarding the analysis. At his request I summoned Sri S.B. Singh, Public Analyst Government of U. P., Lucknow. I examined him on September 3, 1979. Sri Singh has described the method by which the miscroscopic examination was conducted. He has vouched that the only test which is conducted in his department for the purpose of determining whether Cinnamon is pure or impure, is the miscroscopic test. He has sworn that the miscroscope that is used in his department is powerful enough to enable them to clearly visualize the distinction between the fibres and starch etc. present in cinnamon and cassia. He has given the details of these distinctions. Thereafter Sri Singh has state-" that by use of the words foreign bar in his report what he meant was any other bark except cinnamon Zeylanicum ness (Dalchini). He has further elaborated the expression by deposing that "by the remark foreign bark cent percent in my report what I mean is that the bark was not cinnamon at all. I do not mean that it was either Indian or Chinese Cinnamon''. He has also vouched that "According to the specimen as given in Serial No. A.O. 5.06, Cinnamon (Dalchini) in the inner bark of Cina-monum Zeylanicum nees. I have judged the foreign bark from the standard as provided in the above Serial No. which comes from Ceylon. It did not conform to that standard at all. On the date when the sample was analysed there was no standard for Chini Dal Chini." From a perusal of this statement, I have no doubt that miscroscopic test which was conducted in the office of the Public Analyst, was the proper test and that the sample of 'Dal Chini' in question contained cent per cent foreign bark, which was not Dal Chini at all. In this view of the matter, I find no force in the first submission, made by the APPLICANT counsel. It has been next contended that there has been infringement of Section 11(1) (c) (i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act under which it was mandatory for the Food Inspector to send one part of the sample to the Public Analyst and the remaining two pars to the local Health Authority. It has come in the evidence of the Food Inspector that he had divided the sample in question into 3 parts and had duly-wrapped and sealed the bottles. He has also deposed that one bottle had been sent by him for analysis along with the memorandum in form VII paper No. 9-A. He has also deposed that two bottles, he deposited with the local Health Authority. The Food Inspector had vouched that he prepared Form No. VII on the spot. It is dated October 20, 1976. While pending one bottle along with Form No. VII to the Public Analyst, I find that a note has been made therein at serial No. 3, that a copy of this memo along with the second and third phials of the sample is sent herewith to the District Medial Officer of Health, Fatehpur. These entries have not been challenged by the APPLICANTs counsel. As such I have no hesitation in holding that there has been full compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 11(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Food Inspector. There is thus, no merit in this second contention, raised by the APPLICANTs' counsel. The APPLICANTs' counsel has also argued that there has been an infringement of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rule, which provides that a copy of the memo and the specimen of the seal used for the purpose of sealing the packet shall be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorized by him. It will be pertinent to observe here that no such contention hag been raised on behalf of the accused-APPLICANT before any of the courts below. Even in this court, though as many as 14 grounds of revision have been taken, there is no it a single ground of revision which challenges the infringement of rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration rule. These are questions of fact which cannot be allowed to be raised haphazardly without being agitated at the proper stage. Moreover Serial No. 2 of the memo in form VII which has not been challenged on behalf of the APPLICANT, is to the effect that a copy of this memo and the seer men impression of the seal used to seal the packet of the sample, is being sent separately by post. I have no reason to doubt the correctness of the entries in this form. I have further no reason to doubt that the Food Inspector whose testimony is very straight forward and impressive and who had taken all due precautions to send one part of the sample to the Public Analyst, immediately was oblivious of his duty and did not send a copy of memo and the specimen of seal separately to the Food Inspector as required by law. As already mentioned, the Food Inspector was never cross-examined on this question and as such I am convinced that the circumstances and the evidence on the record justify a reasonable inference that rule 18 framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was complied with. The Sessions Judge has rightly observed that whatever was done in this case was to ensure to the best that the sample bottle of the sample could not be changed. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that even the third contention of the APPLICANT has no legs to stand on. The APPLICANTs' counsel has not contended that, there is evidence to indicate that Chinese Cinnamon is grown at several places in India in the south. Therefore, the sample should have been judged from the Indian standard and not from the standard of Dalchini which comes from Ceylon. The Public Analyst has given a very clear statement on this question. He has said that on the date when the sample was analysed, there wag no standard prescribed for Chini Dalchini the only standard that was prescribed was for Cinnamon which comes from Ceylon .and it is from that standard alone that the sample of Cinnamon had to be judged. Thus, this contention of the APPLICANTs' counsel also fails. At last, APPLICANTs' counsel has sought the protection of Section 2(m) proviso of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In my opinion, the benefit of this proviso cannot be given because according to the report of the Public Analyst, the bark of the sample that was examined was not Cinnamon at all. It was neither Indian nor Cinese Cinnamon as stated by the Public Analyst. The mere presence of 0.5 percent volatile oil cannot convert the foreign bark into Cinnamon Zeylanicum nees (Dalchini). For the reasons given above, I do not find any force in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The APPLICANT is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining portion of his sentence. The interim order passed by this court on February 23, 1978 staying realisation of fine is hereby vacated.;