JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by the Municipal Council, Alwar against the judgment of the First Class Magistrate Alwar dated September 18, 1971, by which he acquitted the accused-respondent of the offence under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. I have heard the arguments on behalf of the appellant and seen the record. No one appears on behalf of the respondent. 3. The facts of this case are that Food Inspector Jamna Prasad Gautam PW.l checked the milk of respondent Ramdeo on August 23, 1965 at 9 a.m. when he was carrying a container (Tanki ) of buffalo milk near the Town Hall. The Food Inspector purchased a sample and sent it for chemical examination. It was found that the contents of solid non-fat were 7.8 per cent while they should have been 9 per cent, the fat contents were however found to be 7.4 per cent, while according to the prescribed standard they should have been not less than 3 percent. The opinion of the Public Analyst was that the sample was adulterated because it contained 13 per cent added water. The accused was challenged but he was discharged on January 19, 1968, for want of proper sanction. A fresh challan was therefore, put up against him on June 19, 1968. 4. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on September 18, 1971, on the ground that the statement of the Food Inspector, Jamna Prasad PW 1 was not corroborated by any independent witness. According to Ratanchand PW. 2 the accused was saying that the milk was cow's milk and that he was not taking the milk for sale but was carrying the same to his relatives. The witness denied that the sample was purchased on payment. Ramkanwar P.W. 3 could not remember with the price actually paid was. The Food Inspector admitted that the accused had no licence for sale of the milk. The sample was alleged to have been taken near the Town Hall but the prosecution witness P.W.2 stated that the memos were prepared in Rupbas. The learned Magistrate further observed that the report of the Public analyst did not state whether if the samples were of cow's milk, it was adulterated or not. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused brought buffalos milk for sale. The learned Magistrate further observed that the report of the Public analyst did not state whether if the samples were of cow's milk, it was adulterated or not. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused brought buffalos milk for sale. The witnesses of the defence stated that the accused was a cultiavator and did not carry on the business of milk selling. In these circumstances, the learned magistrate found that the case against the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and consequently, he acquitted the accused. 5. It is quite obvious that the approach of the learned Magistrate betrayed that he did not know the law nor did he care to look into the relevant rules. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 provide that if the accused does not Indicate that the milk was cow's milk, it shall be deemed to be that of the buffalo, vide note (i) to item No. A 11.01.11. of Appendix B. The learned Magistrate did not further check up that the said item No. A.11.01.11. of Appendix B to the aforesaid Rules shows that even in case of cow's milk in Rajasthan, the non fat solids should not fall below 8.5 per cent. Even if it were held that the milk was that of a cow, even then it was below standard. If the accused was bringing milk on a cycle in an iron container in the market shall normally be presumed that it was being brought for sale in the town. If the accused, when caught raises the plea that he was not selling the milk but was carrying it to his relatives then his ipis dixit will not be sufficient to hold that the milk was not meant for sale. The mere fact that the accused did not possess a licence will also not lead to the conclusion that the milk was not meant for sale. If a person sells milk without licence, then, it is a separate offence. The defence evidence of Shanker D.W.l and Mangilal DW.2 is that the accused does not engage in the business of milk selling, but it is not necessary for a person to be found guilty under the aforesaid Act that it must be proved that he engages in the business of selling milk. It is sufficient that he sells or carries milk for sale. It is sufficient that he sells or carries milk for sale. Moreover, it is now well settled by good authority that sale of a sample to the Food Inspector also amounts to sale of purposes of this Act. In this respect there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the. Food Inspector, even if the `motbirs' subsequently do not choose to go the whole hog with the prosecution and are inclined to support the accused. 6. The learned Magistrate was also wrong on facts when he said that the memos were prepared in Rupbas. I have read and re-'read the statements of the witnesses and none of them has anywhere stated that the memos were prepared not in Alwar but in Rupbas. Rather, both of them have supported the Food Inspector. 7. Considering all these facts, I am of the view that the Judgment of the learned Magistrate was not only erroneous but perverse and deserves to be set aside. The offence against the respondent is fully proved. 8. I, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal and convict the accused under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. However, in view of the fact that the accused was once discharged and was again acquitted and the matter related to August, 1965, and further that the fat contents in the sample were higher than the prescribed standard and further still that the non-fat solids were less only by 1.2 per cent. lam inclined to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence and accordingly, I sentence the accused respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 700/-in default of payment whereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. *******