P.N.Bakshi, J. - (1.) The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Etawah. Hence this revision.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. According to the prosecution case sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector on 15th September, 1974, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials which was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst disclosed that it was deficient in fat contents by 50 per cent and in non-fatty solids by 42 per cent. After obtaining sanction the applicant was prosecuted and convicted as above.
(3.) Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on the record and circumstances of the case have held the guilt of the accused fully established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding of fact so recorded by the subordinate courts to warrant interference in revision.;