- (1.) MAHAVIR Singh, J.
(2.) 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. The prosecution case was that on 11-5-1972 the Food Inspector A. P. Dwivedi (PW 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 mili liters 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 fatty 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.
(3.) 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 independent witness was examined and his presence on the spot was also doubtful. In revision such findings of fact are however not open to interference unless there is manifest illegality 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.;