( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE Appellant stands convicted under Section 16 (1) (a) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 Though the Sessions Court acquitted him. the High Court reversed the acquittal and restored the conviction and sentence passed on him.

( 3 ) THE food article which Appellant has sold to the Food Inspector was milk. The public analyst after analysing the sample reported that it has fallen below standards prescribed for milk regarding nonfat contents and fat contents. One defence which Appellant adopted was that the milk was not properly stirred but that was not found favour with by the High Court. Here the condition raised by the learned Counsel is that the Food Inspector was not properly authorised to launch the prosecution. But that was not taken up at an early stage; and hence we are not disposed to countenance the said contention.

( 4 ) MILK being a primary food, learned Counsel contended that it is for the prosecution to prove that the fall in standards was due to human agency and not due to natural causes. The burden of proof has been cast on the vendor of the primary fo