K. B. Lai, J. - (1.) ANAND Prakash who has been convicted for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- by the Special Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Saharanpur and whose conviction and sentence was upheld by Additional District and Sessions Judge, has preferred this revision.
(2.) A sample of the milk of the applicant was taken on 29th December, 1976 at 2.45 p. m. after due compliance with the relevant rules. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was adulterated. After a hot contest, the trial court accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the applicant. Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, has not made any submission on the merits of the case. He has prayed for reduction in the sentence. He has urged that the case is covered under clause (1) of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act and therefore, the minimum sentence of imprisonment for there months and a fine of Rs. 500/- may be awarded to the applicant. This submission of Sri Chaturvedi cannot prevail because one of the essential ingredients for the application of the aforesaid provision is that the article of food must be 'primary food' as defined in Section 2 (xii~a) of the Act. The milk is not a produce of agriculture or horticulture and cannot, therefore, be regarded as primary food'. For this reason, the request of Sri Chaturvedi to reduce the sentence cannot be accepted. 4 The lower courts awarded the minimum sentence which could be awarded to the applicant. There is no force in this revision and it is dismissed. The applicant shall surrender in the trial court to serve out his sentence He is allowed two months time to pay up the fine, if nor already paid. Revision dismissed.;