G.D. Dube, J. - (1.) This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of Sessions Judge, Jhansi, rejecting the criminal appeal of the appellant against the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jhansi, convicting the revisionist under section 7(i)/16(I)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the revisionist is to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
(2.) The brief facts are that the Food Inspector had taken a sample of milk from the appellant. This was sent to the public analyst who found that it was deficient in milk fat by approximately twenty per cent according to the standard of mixed milk of cow and goat. After obtaining the sanction, the prosecution was launched by filing a complaint. The revisionist had denied the charges framed against him under section 7/16 of the Act. The prosecution examined the Food Inspector, R.P. Srivastava and one J.B. Singh. The accused had admitted during trial (hat milk was taken but had alleged that only milk was taken. The accused had not produced any witness in defence. The learned Magistrate found that the revisionist was guilty of the offence under section 7/16 of the Act. The appeal preferred by him was also rejected and the order of the lower court was confirmed.
(3.) It has been argued from the side of the revisionist at the admission stage that the provisions of sections 10(7) and 13(2) of the Act were not complied. It was further urged that the provisions of rule 9(f) of the Rules framed under the Act were also not complied. Lastly it was contended that if the standard of cow milk is taken, then the milk cannot be said to be deficient in its fat contents.;