J.C.Mishra J. - (1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th October 1984 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Ghaziabad dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Hapur Ghaziabad convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000.
(2.) The learned counsel contended that the sample on analysis was found to contain 3.9% milk fat and 6.3% non-fatty solids and view in of the fact that the fat deficiency was marginal the courts below should have not recorded finding of conviction. This argument is devoid of any merit. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed and rightly that there was deficiency of 35% in milk fat content and 80% in non-fatty solids and therefore the deficiency cannot be said to be marginal. In my opinion the courts below rightly held that the sample taken was adulterated.
(3.) The learned counsel then contended that the alleged adulteration was made on 28th October 1980 therefore it would not be proper to send the accused to jail after such a long lapse of time. This contention has force. Consideration of the facts and circumstances that the sample was not found to be injurious to health the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of imprisonment is altered to sentence of fine.;