This revision has been filed by the applicant against his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of four months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 300 awarded to him for the offence. The case of the prosecution in brief was that the accused was found carrying milk in a container exhibiting the same for sale. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity purchased 660 milliliters of milk on payment of price and divided the same into samples as required by law. At the time of the purchase the accused had told the Food Inspector that it was a mixture of cow milk and goat milk in equal proportions. The sample of milk was sent for analysis and the Public Analyst found the milk deficient in non-fatty solids contents by about 25%. Fat contents were 3.9% and non-fatty solids were 6%. The Public Analyst had applied the standard derived from the statutory standards for cow milk and goat milk mixed in the proportion specified by the Food Inspector i.e. 1 : 1.

2. The prosecution examined the Food Inspector and the Octroi Superintendent who had witnessed the sale be the accused to the Food Inspector at the time of the taking of sample. They supported the prosecution case. The plea of the accused in his defence was that he was carrying this milk for a relation and the milk was not meant for sale. The accused produced a witness in support of his defence version who also stated the he had asked the accused to bring the milk for him as he needed the same in connection with the betrothal ceremony of his daughter.

3. The trial court after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the accused had sold milk to the Food Inspector and the sample was proved to be adulterated. The Court accordingly convicted the accused. However, without assigning any adequate or special reason the learned Magistrate awarded a sentence below the minimum prescribed by law. The accused went up in appeal. The appeal was dismissed. The appellate court also did not give any reason for justifying the sentence awarded by the trial court which was below the minimum prescribed by law. The accused has now come up in revision to this Court.

4. The first contention raised by the learned counsel is that the accused could not be held guilty as the fatty con tents in the milk were not below the minimum prescribed. There is no merit in this contention as the non-fatty solids were below the minimum prescribed. I need not repeat the reasons for holding that such a milk will be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as the reasons have already been given in my decision in Rajan Lal v. State, Criminal Revision No. 1224 of 1972 : (reported in 1976 Cri LJ 516) (All). In that case after reviewing the relevant law I deduced the following principles for determining if a particular sample of milk is adulterated or not. Those principles are as follows :-

1. That if the deficiency is either in the fat contents or non-fatty contents, the article of food would be deemed to be adulterated.

2. That if the aggregate of the fat and non-fatty solids contents in the milk is more than the aggregate of the minimum prescribed and the deficiency in one of the contents is marginal, the courts may not punish the accused on the ground that the marginal deficiency may be due to the error in the analysis by the Public Analyst.

3. That in the case of deficiency in one of the contents namely fat or non-fatty solids and the aggregate is also below the aggregate of the two as prescribed in the rules, the article would be deemed to be adulterated.

4. That if the deficiency in either of the two contents namely fat and non-fatty solids contents is such that the deficiency cannot normally be assigned to the error in analysis by the Public Analyst, benefit may not be available to the accused by holding that the milk was not adulterated.

The present case is covered by principles Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and is not covered by prin