V.N. Verma, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 1 -3 - 1973 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicants under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) AT the relevant time applicant Gopi Chand was supplier of milk in the Medical College, Meerut. Applicant Bhagwana was his employee and he used to carry the milk on behalf of his master for being supplied to the Medical College. On 2nd December, 1970 also he was seen carrying milk to the college in a container. On that day at about 9.30 A.M. Food Inspector. Joti Prasad Tyagi stopped him in the way and disclosed his identity to him. He purchased by way of sample 660 mili -litre of milk from him for 75 P. The milk, so purchased was divided in three parts and kept in three separate phials. One of the phials was given to applicant Bhagwana. The Food Inspector also gave notice in Form 6 to him. One of the sample phials was sent to Public Analyst for analysis and report. The Public Analyst found the sample of milk deficient in fat contents by 45 per cent and non -fatty solids by about 39 per cent. The applicants were, therefore, sent up to stand their trial under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Both the applicants pleaded not guilty. Applicant Gopi Chand admitted that he used to supply milk to Medical College, Meerut. He also admitted that Appellant Bhagwana was his employee and he used to carry milk to Medical College on his behalf. His contention, however, is that on 2 -12 -1970 applicant Bhagwana had supplied milk to the Medical College at about 8.40 A.M. and that he never sold any milk to the Food Inspector by way of sample at 9.30 A. M. According to him if any sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector it was taken from the kitchen of the hospital. The defence put forward by applicant Bhagwana also is more or less on similar lines. He too has Mated that no sample of milk was taken from him, but it was taken from the kitchen of the hospital of the Medical College.
(3.) THE trial Court found the prosecution case proved and it, therefore, convicted the applicants under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced each of them to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. The applicants felt aggrieved with the judgment of the trial Court and went up in appeal to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed their appeal and hence this revision.;