J.M.L.Sinha, J. - (1.) This revision arises out of the judgment dated, 11-3-78 passed by Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar dismissing the appeal that was filed by the present applicant against his conviction and sentence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) On 17th of August, 1973, at about 9 a. m., a sample was collected by the Food Inspector, out of the milk in the possession of the applicant. One part of the sample was sent to the public analyst which was found to be adulterated. A complaint was, therefore, filed for the prosecution of the applicant. During his examination in the trial court, the applicant accepted the collection of sample from his possession. He, however, pleaded that the milk was pure and that the report of the public analyst was incorrect. The trial court held the applicant guilty and sentenced him to one years R. I. and to a fine of Rs. 2,000. Aggrieved against it, the applicant filed an appeal in the court of Sessions which resulted in dismissal and hen this revisions.
(3.) The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant was that the charge in the instant case was defective in as much as it did not specify the extent to which the milk was adulterated nor did it disclose as to under which clause of Section 2 of the Act, did the alleged adulteration fall. Reliance for this argument was placed by the learned counsel on a decision of this court in case of Ajodhya Prasad v. State 1977 (II) FAC 26.;