JUDGMENT K.C. Aggrawal, J. - These two revisions have been filed by Jagdeo challenging his conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Criminal Revision No. 394 of 1973 is in respect of the sample which was obtained by the Food Inspector from him on 3rd March, 1970. The milk supplied by the applicant was thereafter sent to the Public Analyst who found that the sample was deficient in fat contents by about 20 per cent and was also deficient in non-fatty solids by about 4 per cent. The applicant was thereafter prosecuted by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari. To prove the charge against the applicant a number of witnesses were produced by the prosecution. The accused pleaded not guilty on the ground that he was mere an employee of the Halwai for whom he was carrying the milk and since he was not himself the seller he could not be convicted for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. After examining the evidence on the record the Magistrate found that the milk was deficient and further disbelieved the defence theory that the applicant was an employee of a Halwai. He came to the conclusion that the applicant himself was a milkman and that the milk that was being carried by him on that date was meant for sale to public. On this finding the applicant was convicted by the Magistrate and was sentenced to four months R.I. as well as to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In appeal the conviction and sentence of the applicant were maintained. Aggrieved by these judgemnts the present revision No. 394 of 1973 has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant but I am unable to find any error of law in the judgment requiring interference under section 435 and 439 Cr. P.C. The finding that the milk found from his possession on 3rd March, 1970 was deficient and was not according to the standard Laid down by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not, in fact, seriously challenged either before the courts below or before me. The only point urged was about the fact as to whether the applicant was an employee and was carrying the milk in that capacity. The two courts below did not accept the defence. The only point urged was about the fact as to whether the applicant was an employee and was carrying the milk in that capacity. The two courts below did not accept the defence. The finding recorded by them is one of fact and I see no reason to differ with the same. Accordingly the revision has no merits and is liable to fail. 4. So far as revision No. 394 of 1973 is concerned, the same is in respect of sample obtained by the Food Inspector on 3rd August, 1971 from the applicant at 2.30 P.M. near shop No. 237 Meeraganj, Allahabad. The sample was thereafter sent to the public Analyst after it was divided into three parts. The public Analyst reported that it was not in conformity with the standard prescribed by the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Thereafter a complaint was filed by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari against the applicant. 5. The applicant pleaded not guilty. He even asserted that the sample was not obtained from him. He further said that milk which he was carrying was of some other person and that the same was not meant for sale. The Magistrate accepted the evidence produced by the prosecution and finding the applicant to be guilty of the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act sentenced him to six months' R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In appeal his conviction and sentence were maintained. Against these judgments the present revision. No. 394 of 1973 has been filed. 6. Nothing could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant which could show that the judgments rendered by the two courts below against the applicant holding him to be guilty of the offence charged were illegal. The report of the Public Analyst clearly indicated that the milk was not in conformity with the standard prescribed by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Therefore, the conviction of the applicant was fully justified. 7. The only other question that remains to be considered is about the sentences of the applicant passed in the aforesaid two trials. Counsel relying upon sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr. P.C. urged that the Magistrate should have directed the two sentences awarded in two trials to run concurrently. Therefore, the conviction of the applicant was fully justified. 7. The only other question that remains to be considered is about the sentences of the applicant passed in the aforesaid two trials. Counsel relying upon sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr. P.C. urged that the Magistrate should have directed the two sentences awarded in two trials to run concurrently. In the instant case, however, I do not feel inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, it is worthy of being mentioned that soon after the first sample was obtained from him in March, 1970 he was again found selling adulterated milk in August, 1971. The sentences in these cases, therefore, cannot be directed to run concurrently. 8. In the result, the revisions fail and are dismissed. The stay orders are vacated. The applicant is on bail. He shall surrender to his bailbonds, failing which he shall be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out his remaining sentences. His bailbonds are cancelled.