P.N. Bakshi, J.

1. THE applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act; and sentenced to 6 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- by the Judicial Magistrate, Ballia. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Ballia. Hecne this revision.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders and the record of the case. According to the prosecution cases, the Food Inspector purchased a sample of Pera which the applicant was selling at his shop at 11-30 A. M. on 18th July, 1974, in accordance with law. Out of the three sample phials prepared on the spot, one was sent for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the milk fat contents in the sample in question was only 1.1 percent, whereas the minimum permissible under the: U. P. Pure Food Rules, 1952, was 5 percent. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above.

3. BOTH the courts below have, on a consideration of the evidence on the record, come to the conclusion that the sample of 'pera' was adulterated and that the offence in question have been fully establ