CHHOTEY LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, hence this revision.

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

(3.) According to the prosecution case, a sample of buffalo milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant at 8 a.m. on 3-5-78 in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst which disclosed that it was deficient in non-fatty solids by 14 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 satisfactorily proved. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding of fact recorded by them to warrant interference in revision.