( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed by Nanhey who has been convicted for an offence Under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly the Act) and sen tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rupees 1,000/ -.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts, in brief, are that Food Inspector V. N. Kulshrestha took a sample of cows milk from the applicant at Lohamandi crossing within the limits of Nagar Maha Palika, Agra on 25th Aug. 1973 at about 9 p. m. after observing the relevant rules. A part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the fat content was 3. 6% and non-fat contents were 5. 6%. The sample was treated as adulterated. A complaint was filed against the applicant on or before 4th May, 1974. The applicant took a variety of defences but none was accepted by the trial court. In the result, the applicant was convicted and sentenced. His appeal was also unsuccessful. Hence this revision,

( 3 ) SRI R. K. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the applicant, argued this revision at great length on 6th and 15th July, 1981.

( 4 ) THE first point urged by Sri Dwivedi is that the Public Analyst was not examine