SUDERSHAN LAL Vs. THE STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six month's R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo further 3 months' R.I. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur, hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and have also examined the record of the case. A sample of buffalo milk was taken from the applicant by the Food Inspector on 21st July, 1977 at 9 A.M., which on analysis was found to be adulterated. The report of the Public Analyst was that the sample contained 5.4 per cent fat and 6.8 per cent non-fatty solids, It was thus deficient both in fat contents and in non-fatty solids. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above.

(3.) So far as the merits of the case are concerned, it is clear that there is abundant evidence on the record to indicate that the sample that was taken by the Food Inspector was that of buffalo milk. It was, therefore, rightly adjudged from that standard. The report of the Public Analyst correctly indicates the deficiency both in fat contents or in non-fatty solids. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the assessment of evidence by the subordinate courts to warrant interference.