MOHAMMAD YASIN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act and sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. In default of payment of fine he is to undergo four months' R.I. further. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. A sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant at about 10 A.M. on 31st July, 1975 in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, One of the sample phial was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that it was deficient to the extent of 7% in fat contents and 9% in non-fatty solids. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above.

(3.) Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case have held the guilt of the accused established beyond all doubt, i do not find any Illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court to warrant interference in revision.