( 1 ) THE applicant challenges his conviction under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act and the sentence imposed thereunder. In the connected revisions the applicants challenge their convictions under the same provision and the sentences imposed thereunder. It has been found as a matter of faet that" the applicant sold a mixture of buffalo milk and cow milk, a sample of which was taken by an Inspector and sent for chemical analysis. The public analyst reported that the sample contained 5,9 per cent milk fats and 7. 0 per cent non-fatty solid and that it contained 7. 20 per cent added water. He treated the sample as if the two kinds of milk were mixed in equal proportions. It is on the basis of this report of the public analyst that the sample has been found by the court below to be adulterated and the applicant has been convicted under Section 16 of the Act for infringement of provisions of Section 7, which prohibits sale of adulterated food. The case against the applicant was tried as a summons case and after the complaint made by the Inspector was read over to him ho was asked to plead and he pleaded guilty. Previous to the conviction in this case he had been convicted for another offence under the same Act; he had submitted himself to the conviction and the sentence. On account of the previous conviction he has been sentenced under Section 16 (1) (ii) as for a second offence.

( 2 ) THE first question that arises is whether it has been proved that the milk that the applicant sold was adulterated or not. An article of food becomes an adulterated article of food in various ways mentioned in Section 2 (i) of the Act. For instance, if its quality or purity falls below the prescribed standard, or if its constituents represent any quantities which are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability, or if any inferior or cheaper substance has been substituted wholly or in part or it so as to affect injuriously its nature, substance or quality it is adulterated. Before one deals with the question whether there is adulteration or not one must decide what is the article that is under consideration. In this case the article under consideration is a mixture of buffalo milk and cow milk; the applicant admittedly sold it as a mixture of cow milk and buffalo milk; he did not profess to sell pure buffalo milk or pure cow milk. He would be guilty of infringement of Section 7 only if he sold the mixture in an adulterated condition,. e. if the quality or purity of the mixture fell below the prescribed standard, or if any inferior or cheaper substance had been substituted in it wholly or in part so as to affect injuriously its nature, substance or quality. Merely because it is a mixture it does not become an adulterated article. If he sold it as buffalo milk it can be said to be adulterated because it was mixed with cow milk which is inferior to, or cheaper than, buffalo milk. But he sold it as a mixture, and in order to commit the offence of adulteration he must have adulterated the mixture with something inferior or cheaper or injurious.

( 3 ) THE mixture, as such, would be adulterated if its quality or purity fell below the prescribed standard, or if for it any cheaper substance was substituted or if it was not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and was to his prejudice, or was not of the nature, substance or quality which it purported or was represented to be. If the proportion of buffalo milk and cow milk was 1 : 2 but the applicant represented that it was half and halt it could be said to be adulterated because it was not of the nature, substance or qua-lity which it was represented to be. Neither in this case nor in any of the connected cases has the milk been found to be adulterated on this ground. In this case there is no evidence of the proportion in which buffalo milk and cow milk were mixed together, in some of the connected cases the accused represented that the two kind