( 1 ) IDENTICAL questions of law and fact arise in both these revisional applications directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 8 at Ahmedabad as affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Court No. 7 at Ahmedabad. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties appearing before me, I have thought it fit to hear both these revisional applications together and to dispose them of by this common judgment of mine.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to both these revisional applications are not many and not much in dispute. The petitioner herein was working at the relevant time as the Quality Control Officer in one Abad Dairy in Ahmedabad. On 26/05/1981 the original complainant went to the Abad Dairy and he found that the packing and distribution of milk in milk pouches was being carried on. He found the petitioner present in the Abad Dairy at the relevant time. A person was summoned to act as a panch witness. In his presence the petitioner herein was asked about the price of milk. The original complainant purchased from the petition.-r herein some two milk bottles of 500 milligrams each as a sample for the purpose of the Prevention of Food Adulteration act, 1954 (the Act for convenience ). After dividing the sample into three parts, each part of the sample was packed and sealed in a bottle. One sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst for his analysis and report. The report of its analysis indicated that it did not conform to the standard of milk prescribed by the Rules framed under the Act. Thereupon the original complainant after obtaining the necessary sanction from the sanctioning authority gave his complaint of the incident to the Metropolitan Magistrate of Court no. 8 at Ahmedabad charging the present petitioner and the Managing Director of the Abad Dairy with the offence punishable under Sec. 16 (l-A) (i) read with Sec. 7 of the Act. It came to be registered as Summary Case No. 48 of 1981. Neither accused pleaded guilty to the charge. Thereupon they were tried. After recording the prosecution evidence, the further statement of each accused was recorded. The present petitioner as accused No. 2 examined himself at trial in defence. One more defence witness was also examined at trial. Some documentary evidence was also brought on record on behalf of the defence at trial. After hearing arguments, by his judgment and order passed on 18/03/1985 in Summary Case No. 48 of 1981, the learned metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 8 at Ahmedabad acquitted accused No. 1 of the charge levelled against him but convicted accused No. 2 (the petitioner herein) of the offence with which he was charged and sentenced" to simple imprisonment for six months and fine of rupees one thousand in default of which simple imprisonment for one month more.

( 3 ) IT appears that the original complainant as the Food Inspector purchased sample of milk from the petitioner herein on 16/06/1981. That sample was also found to be not conforming to the standard of milk prescribed by the Rules under the Act on its analysis by the Public Analyst. Thereupon, after obtaining the necessary sanction from the sanctioning authority, the complainant gave his complaint of the incident to the metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 8 at Ahmedabad. It came to be registered as Summary Case No. 85 of 1981. Therein also 1 he present petitioner along with the Managing Director of the Abad Dairy were shown as the accused and were charged with the same offence punishable under sec. 16 (l-A) (i) read with Sec. 7 of the Act. In that case also neither accused pleaded guilty to the charge. They were thereupon tried. After recording the prosecution evidence, the further statement of each accused was recorded. The present petitioner as the accused examined himself in defence at trial. One more witness was examined at trial in defence. Certain documentary evidence was also brought on r