Murildhar, J.

1. THE applicant Ashiq has been convicted under section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six month's RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default S. I. for two months.

2. THE prosecution case was that on 26-5-1977 at about 10 A. M. the applicant was carrying some cans of milk for sale. A sample of milk was obtained by the Food Inspector and on alaysis by the Public Analyst it was found containing only 3.8% fatty solids as against the prescribed 4.5% for buffalo milk. THE applicant was accordingly prosecuted. THE defence was a denial and the applicant pleaded that no sample was taken from him and it was false case. Both the courts below have disbelieved the defence and accepted the prosecution evidence regarding taking of sample.

The only point canvassed in revision is that the milk in question should not have been judged by the standard of buffalo milk. It is pointed out that the fat content as well as non-fatty solids content are in accordance with the prescribed standard for cow milk. It is emphasised that in the notice in Form 6 as well as the receipt for the sample the Food Inspector described the article of food as merely milk and not as