BASIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, In default of payment of fine he is to undergo further three months R. I. His conviction and sentence have been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. Hence this revision.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the Food Inspector Sri Gajram Singh purchased a sample of cow's milk from the accused applicant at about 8 A. M. on 30th April 1977. The sample was sent for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst indicated that the sample contained 6. 6 per cent fat and 7. 4 per cent non-fatty solids. The sample was thus deficient in non-fatty contents, according to the prescribed standard. Both the courts below have concurrently held the prosecution case proved. These are findings of fact which cannot be disturbed in revision.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant has argued before me that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who has passed the impugned order of conviction, had no jurisdiction to try the accused. In support of his argument he has placed reliance upon Section 16-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which runs as follows: