( 1. ) THE accused-applicant Ramdayal was convicted by the Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur, under Section 7, read with Section 16, of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling in the town of Jabalpur, on the morning of the 28th of October 1961, at about 6. 30 a. m. , adulterated milk, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, together with a fine of Rs. 1,000, or, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, taking into consideration that the applicant had two previous convictions to his credit. On appeal, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, maintained both the conviction and the sentence. He has now come up in revision to this Court against his conviction and sentence aforesaid.

( 2. ) ACCORDING to Gujarati (P. W. 1), the Food Inspector of the Corporation of Jabalpur, while he was sitting at Tula Ram Chowk to take samples of milk for the purpose of detecting adulteration, he found that the accused was going on a cycle with milk in tin-cans for the purpose of its sale. The accused had about four seers of milk and a milk-measure with him. He gave the accused a notice in Form VI intimating his intention to purchase milk from him by way of a sample for the purpose of analysis. He then purchased three paos of milk which the accused stated was the mixed milk of cow and buffalo. He paid. 47 np to the accused as the price of the milk, for which the accused passed a receipt (Ex. P 3) in token of his having received the price. He then divided the milk into three equal parts and filled them up in three sterilized bottles. He added eight drops of formalin as a preservative in each bottle. The bottles were duly sealed, labelled and fastened. He then put his signatures on the bottles and obtained the signatures of the accused on the covers of each bottle also. One such bottle was handed over to the accused and his acknowledgment was taken vide Ex. P 2. One bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Bapat (P. W. 2 ). According to his report (Ex. P 5) the milk was deficient in solid nonfat, as it contained 5. 7 per cent solid non-fat as against 8. 5 per cent which was the prescribed minimum. In his opinion, the milk was adulterated. The evidence of the Food Inspector (P. W. 1) was further corroborated by that of Bhuvendra (P. W. 3), who was a witness to the purchase and seizure of the sample of milk from the accused.

( 3. ) THE aforesaid evidence, which has been accepted by the two Courts below and which I see no reason to discard, fully establishes that the milk, which the accused was selling on the morning of the 28th of October 1961 was adulterated milk.

( 4. ) THE first contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that there was no proof that the accused-applicant was a milk-seller. In my opinion, there is no basis for such a contention. The accused was found going on a cycle with milk contained in tin-cans. He had also a milk-measure in his possession. He also sold milk to the Food Inspector (P. W. 1) on his asking for it for which he was paid its price. The aforesaid evidence thus leaves no room for doubt that the accused was selling milk, which was, on analysis, found to be adulterated. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, there is also the positive evidence of the Food Inspector (P. W. 1) that he had seen the accused selling milk a number of times and that to his knowledge was a milk seller.

( 5. ) THE second contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the Food Inspector (P. W. 1) did not get his purchase of the samples of milk and its sealing witnessed by at least two persons as required by Section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act under that section, where the food Inspector takes any action under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1), Sub-section (2), Sub-section (4), or Sub-section (6), he shall, as far as possible, call not less than two persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take their signa