ROOM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Bareilly. Hence this,revision.

(2.) This case was adjourned and passed over more than 16 times and was directed to be listed part heard pre-emptory today. In these circumstances, I have taken up this revision.

(3.) According to the prosecution case a sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the accused-applicant in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials which was sent for analysis disclosed that it was adulterated being deficient in fat contents by 25 per cent. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case have held the guilt of the accused fully established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court to warrant interference in revision.