HAMEED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. In default of payment of fine he has been directed to undergo further period of 3 months' R.I: His conviction has been maintained in appeal by the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah, but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to 3 month's R.I. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1000.00 was maintained. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders and the record of the case. It appears that sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector at about 7 p.m. on 11th May, 1975 from the shop of the applicant, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that it was deficient in fat contents by 45 par cent and in non-fatty solids by 26 per cent. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above.

(3.) Both the courts below have on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the ca9e come to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused is fully established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by them.