ORDER

On proof of the facts that the appellants were selling adulterated curd, they were convicted under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of the payment of fine, they were to further undergo two months s simple imprisonment. The appeal and the revision filed by them were dismissed, hence this appeal by special leave.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued that as the food inspector had not discharged his duties strictly in accordance with rule 9 of the rules framed under the Act, the appellant should have been given the benefit of the lapses and the seized curd be deemed to have been prepared out of the cow s milk. Rule 9 of the rules refers to the duties of the food inspector and does not provide that in all cases, where sample is taken, the food inspector should ascertain the source of the article seized and if he fails to note the origin of the food product, the benefit of the same should be given to the accused.

3. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the single