MATA BADAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

(2.) Both the courts below have recorded a finding of fact to the effect that Besan was recovered from the applicants shop and that the applicant was keeping it for being used while preparing sweet-meat. This being finding of fact should not be interfered with in revision.

(3.) It was urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that since that Besan was not being sold as Besan even according to the finding of the two courts below, the applicant could not be held guilty of the offence under Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The argument fails to impress me. There have been cases in which at a tea shop sample of sugar of milk was taken and, on being found adulterated, the accused was convicted of the offence under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16. The same analogy can apply here as well.