- (1.) LAKSHMI Bihari, J. No one has ap peared on behalf of the revisionist, although the list has been revised. I have heard Shri S. K. Pal, the learned AGA for the State.
(2.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-8-1986 passed by the Session Judge, Farukkhabad, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. According to the case of the prosecution, the revisionist was found sell ing adulteration milk. He was tried for an offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The trial Court by its judgmemt and order dated 27-6-1986 has convicted him under Section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in the event of default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved, he filed an appeal and the lower Appellate Court, after perusing the evidence on record, by its impugned judg ment, has dismissed the appeal and con firmed the judgment of the trial Court. Upon a perusal of the judgments of the Courts below, the Court is of the opinion that the findings recorded therein are based upon the appraisal of evidence on record and need no interference. Thus there is no force in the revision and it is accordingly dismissed.
(3.) THE bail granted to the revisionist is cancelled. He shall be taken into the custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him. Revision dismissed. .;