JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His conviction and sentence has been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Etawah, vide his order dated 10th April, 1978. Hence this revision. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, the Food Inspector found the applicant selling milk at about 11-05 a.m. on 30th December, 75 at the Station Bazariya Etawah. He purchased 660 Mili Litres of milk on payment of 0.99 paise, divided the sample into three portions, kept it in three separate dry bottles and sealed them. He obtained a receipt Ex Ka. 2 from the accused after giving him form No. 6 (Ex. Ka.) in the presence of witnesses Memo of the sample was prepared which is Ex. Ka 6. Since the kind of milk was not mentioned either on the container nor was it given by the accused-applicant, it was treated as buffalo milk by the Public Analyst. His report indicated that the sample sent to him had 5 per cent fat and 7.1 per cent non-fatty solids. The sample was found on analysis to be adulterated. The sanction was obtained and the applicant was prosecuted and sentenced as above. 3. Counsel for the applicant has contended that there has been nor we compliance of Sections 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act inasmuch as independent witnesses were not called to witnesses the taking of the sample. It is evident from the receipt (Ex. Ka 2) and also from the memo (Ex. Ka 6) that one Vinoke Kumar (P.W. 2) was called by the Food Inspector. He has been examined as a witness. There is, thus, no merit in this contention. 4. It is next contended that the sample of milk taken by the Food Inspector was not buffalo milk, but was goat milk. D.W. 1, Jitendra Narain had been produced to state that goat milk was taken by the Food Inspector. The courts below have considered this evidence. It appears that the accused has taken inconsistent stand in this connection. In statement dated 3rd Dec. 1976, he has stated that it was mixed milk of cow and goat, but in statement dated 19th Jan. 78, he stated that it was purely goat's milk. The courts below have considered this evidence. It appears that the accused has taken inconsistent stand in this connection. In statement dated 3rd Dec. 1976, he has stated that it was mixed milk of cow and goat, but in statement dated 19th Jan. 78, he stated that it was purely goat's milk. I further found that in statement dated 3rd December, 76, he has stated that on the container it was written that the milk was mixed milk of cow and goat, but D.W. 1. Jitendra Narain has stated that the accused was possessed of two containers, one of which had an inscription of goat milk and the other had inscription of buffalo milk. These various contradictions have been considered by the courts below as destructive of the defence case. The Food Inspector has clearly stated that nothing was written on the container from which the milk was taken, nor did the accused mention to him at the time of the taking of the sample that this was goat's milk. The courts below have, thus, correctly found on the appraisal of the evidence on the record that the accused had not given out the quality of milk to the Food Inspector of which he took the sample. The sample of milk was, therefore, rightly treated as buffalo milk. From a perusal of the impugned order of the Sessions Judge, it also appears that even if it is assumed for the purposes of argument that the milk in question was goat milk, yet according to the prescribed standard, it would still be adulterated because the minimum standards prescribed by the Act for non-fatty solids of goat milk is 9 per cent as against 7.1 per cent found on analysis by the Public Analyst vide his report (Ex. Ka 4). For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this contention. 5. Learned counsel has urged that the form No. 6 as prescribed under Rule 11 contains a column which requires details of the articles of food seized to be mentioned. He has urged that it is the duty of the Food Inspector to fill in these details. It is true that the details of the articles of food should be filled in this column. In the instant case I find that 660 mililitres milk has been mentioned in form No. 6. He has urged that it is the duty of the Food Inspector to fill in these details. It is true that the details of the articles of food should be filled in this column. In the instant case I find that 660 mililitres milk has been mentioned in form No. 6. The nature of the milk has, however, not been mentioned. Since the finding recorded by the court below and accepted by me is that the applicant did not disclose the quality of the milk to the Food Inspector at the time sample was taken, it cannot be argued that the details as required in this form are missing. In these circumstances, the milk will be treated to be buffalo milk and it will have to be judged from that standard. However, if in some cases details are lacking, which is not so in the present case. I find no reason why the testimony of the Food Inspector should not be accepted to fill up that deficiency. The Food Inspector is responsible officer of the State and in the absence of any animus it would be reasonable to accept his statement as correct. I, therefore, do not find any force in this submission. 6. Lastly it is argued that the bottles in which the sample was taken were not die and there was some drops of water inside them. While considering this question of fact, the courts below took into consideration the memo (Ext. Ka 6) in which it is mentioned that the samples were kept in clean dry bottles. This memo has been signed by Vinod Kumar P.W. 1. On a consideration of statements and the above circumstances, the courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the bottles were clean and dry in which the samples were taken. I do not find any reason to interfere with this finding. I however, do not agree with the observation of the Sessions Judge that if a few drops of water were inside the bottles, it would not affect the result of the analysis, but that question does not arise in the present case, in view of the finding recorded by him that the bottles to which the samples were taken, were dry and clean. 7. On the question of sentence also, I am not inclined to interfere. The applicant is a grown-up person. 7. On the question of sentence also, I am not inclined to interfere. The applicant is a grown-up person. His age has been given as 35 years, in statement recorded on 3rd December, 1976. Subsequently when his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. on 19th Jan. 78 he has given his age as 30 years. This is obviously false. Instead of increasing his age appears to have decreased with the passage of time. His conduct disentitle him to leniency. I am thus not inclined to reduce the sentence awarded to him. 8. There is no merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the expired portion of his sentence. His bail bonds shall be discharged.