LALMAN Vs. NAGAR SWASTHYA ADHIKARI AND OTHERS

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. 1,000.00, in default of payment of fine, he is to undergo further 3 months R.I. 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 and the record of the case.

(3.) The case for the prosecution is that the Food Inspector has purchased a sample of bulfalo milk from the applicant Lalman on 4th Feb., 1976, from the Canteen owned by the applicant. The Canteen is situated inside J.K. Cotton Mills, Kanpur. The sample was divided into 3 parts and duly bottled and sealed. One of the sample phials was sent to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that it was deficient in fat contents by 38 percent and in non-fatty solids by 20 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 has come to the conclusion that the milk in question sold by the applicant to the Food Inspector was adulterated. As such the prosecution case stands fully established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact, recorded by the subordinate Courts to warrant interference in revision.