V.K.Khanna, J. - (1.) The applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has been sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. and also a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo R.I. for a period of six months.
(2.) It has been urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the orders of the two courts below are liable to be set aside inasmuch as the milk which was kept by the applicant was for the purposes of using it in the tea which was being prepared at the shop of the applicant. It is now well settled that even if the milk is being kept for being used in preparation of tea it has to correspond to the standard under the Act. The aforesaid contention has thus no force.
(3.) It has been next urged that unless it was shown that the milk was unfit for the use it could not be said that it was adulterated. In Bankey v. The State, 1979 (I) FAC 319 , it has been clearly held that an article of food which does not correspond to the standard prescribed would be treated to by an adulterated one. The submission made, therefore, has no substance.;