P.N.BAKSHI,J. - (1.)THE applicant has been convicted under Sections 7 (1) read with 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Preven­tion of Food Adulteration. Act and sen­tenced to 6 months' R.I. and a fine of 'Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further 4 months' R.I. His conviction and sen­tence has been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Jhansi. Hence this revision.
(2.)I have heard Sri S.S. Tiwari, learn­ed counsel for the applicant and the State counsel at a considerable length and have also perused the record of the case carefully.
According to the prosecution case, the Food Inspector Sri M.M. Saxena had purchased a sample of Cow Milk on payment of Rs. 1.50 from the shop of the applicant Munni Lal, after serving the requisite notice and disclosing his identity. The milk was divided equal­ly in three phials, 18 drops of formline were added in each of the phials, and the sample phials were properly corked and labeled. One sample phial was given to the applicant and of the other two sample phials, one was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample was deficient in fat contents by 9 per cent and in non-fatty solids by 31 per cent. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and con­victed as above. The accused denied the sale of milk by him. His case was that he had kept 14 liters milk with water to clean the Chasni far the Sweet­meat. He admitted having signed the notice (Ex. Ka-1) and the receipt Ex. Ka-2 but alleged that he was forced to do so.

(3.)BOTH the courts below on a conside­ration of the evidence on the record, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the sample of Cow Milk purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant was adulterated. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the courts below to warrant interference in the revision.