P.N.Bakshi, J. - (1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sections 2/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Bulandshar, hence this revision.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders and the record of the case.
(3.) According to the prosecution the Food Inspector had purchased Nugdi Laddo from the shop of the accused at 12-15 p.m. on 14th September, 1973, which the accused professed to have been made in mustard oil. The sample was bottled and sealed in accordance with law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis, whose report disclosed that the sample contained a mixture of mustard oil and Vanaspati. It was therefore adulterated. The accused denied his guilt. The courts below on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused has been satisfactorily established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded concurrently by the subordinate courts to warrant interference in revision.;