AMINUDDIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Pood Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/. In default of payment of fine he is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Bareilly. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector had purchased a sample of cows milk from the applicant at about 1-30 P.M. on 4th March, 1976 in Mohalla Saidana Road in the city of Bareilly, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, whose report disclosed that it contained non-fatty solids 8.7% and milk fat 1.7% and was thus deficient in fatty solids by about 51%. 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 applicant guilty of the offence for which he was charged. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by them.