UDAI SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine the applicant has been ordered to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months. His conviction ' and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Nainital. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order and the record of the case.

(3.) According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector had purchased a sample of mixed cow and buffalo milk at 8 a.m. on 23rd April, 1977, which the applicant was carrying for sale near Police Station, Tallital, in the city of Nainital, 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 2% and in non-fatty solids by about 19%. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case, have come to the conclusion that the guilt of the applicant has been satisfactorily established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact concurrently recorded by the subordinate courts to warrant interference in revision.