SHABBIR AHMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the applicant against his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs, 1,000.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief was that the applicant on October 28, 1970 at about 9 P. M. had exposed for sale milk which was claimed to be buf- falo milk. The Pood Inspector purchased 660 ml of milk and paid 0. 90p. as its price. The required notice ni given and tiie jeceipt of payment was also obtained The milk purchased was divided into three parti and sealed in three bottles after adding iommalin. One of the samples was tanded-over to the vendor. The Food Inspector sent one of the sealed bottles to the Pumic Analyst for chemical test. The ana-Jyaii showed that the milk was deficient to fat contents by 43%. The Public Analyst accordingly reported that the sample adulterated.

(3.) THE accused pleaded not guilty. He also pleaded that he was not selling nrilk and also led evidence in support of ihis contention. The accused himself also appeared in the witness box as D. W. 3. In cross-examination, he admitted that the sample of milk was taken from him but bis thuntb impression was taken by force.