MAHAVIR SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS is a re­vision by Narauti against the dismissal of his appeal by the learned 1st Additio­nal Sessions Judge, Agra against his con­viction under section 7/16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and a sentence of R. I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default a fur­ther R. I. for six months.
(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 11.5. 1972 the Food Inspector A. P. Diwedi (P. W. 1) took a sample of cow's milk from the possession of the appli­cant at 10.45 A. M. within the limits of Nagar Mahapalika, Agra. After dis­closing his identity and after usual for­malities he gave the price of 660 mililiters of milk to the applicant and divi­ded the same into three samples. On the report of the public analyst the milk was found deficient in non-gattis solids by 38%. A complaint was filed against the applicant but the applicant denied the charge. He alleged that he was not selling the milk. He was having about 2 kilograms of milk and was ta­king it to one Puran Chand. He admit­ted that sample was taken from him by the Food Inspector but no price was given to him. The learned magistrate held the pro­secution to be correct and so accordingly convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above. On appeal the finding was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Two points have been urged in re­vision before me. One is that the evi­dence on record was not such that the prosecution case should have been believ­ed. It was said that only one in independent witness was exanined and his presence on the spot was also doubtful, in revision such findings of fact are however not open to interference unless there are mani­fest illegalities in procedure or there is exclusion or admission of any material piece of evidence or so. Both the courts below held this witness to be present on the spot and as such it does not call for an interference.
(3.) IT is then contended that there was no legal evidence to hold that the sam­ple of milk was adulterated. In order to appreciate the contention of parties, some facts may be mentioned. At first Public Analyst had submitted a report showing that the sample milk was adul­terated. Later applicant applied for a report from Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. That also confirm­ed the report of Public Analyst.;