JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he is to undergo further 3 months R.I. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order and the record of the case. 3. The case for the prosecution is that the Food Inspector has purchased a sample of bulfalo milk from the applicant Lalman on 4th February, 1976, from the Canteen owned by the applicant. The Canteen is situated inside J.K. Cotton Mills, Kanpur. The sample was divided into 3 parts and duly bottled and sealed. One of the sample phials was sent to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that it was deficient in fat contents by 38 percent and in non-fatty solids by 20 per cent. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case has come to the conclusion that the milk in question sold by the applicant to the Food Inspector was adulterated. As such the prosecution case stands fully established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact, recorded by the subordinate Courts to warrant interference in revision. 4. Counsel for the applicant has argued very extrenuously that under Section 46 of the Factories Act, a Company is bound to provide a Canteen. Therefore, if any offence stands committed, it was the Company, which was responsible for the same and it is the duty for the prosecution to prove as to who was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. In short, he has urged that the Company and his officers should have been prosecuted and not the applicant. I am unable to accept this argument. No such point has been argued before the Sessions Judge; nor before the trial court. In short, he has urged that the Company and his officers should have been prosecuted and not the applicant. I am unable to accept this argument. No such point has been argued before the Sessions Judge; nor before the trial court. The point invokes consideration of questions of fact which cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage; secondly there is no evidence on record to indicate that the canteen was run by the J.K. Cotton Mills and that the employees of the Canteen where the milk was sold to the Food Inspector, were employees of the mills. On the contrary, the evidence on the record indicates that the canteen was being run by a private contractor. Therefore, Section 46 of the Factories Act would have no application in the circumstances of the present case. 5. It is next argued that the sample in question was taken from the kitchen. As such it was not meant for sale. The food inspector exceeded his jurisdiction in taking such a sample. Under Rule 9(a) of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Food Inspector is authorised to inspect all establishments licence for manufacture, storage or sale of article of food within the area assigned to him. The Food Inspector was, therefore, fully competent to enter into the kitchen of the accused and to inspect the article of food there. It may be noted that all articles of food which are for sale in the Canteen cannot possibly be exhibited in the Canteen itself. They are brought from the kitchen as ordered by the customers from time to time. It is correct that the milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant Lalman, the owner of the Canteen from the kitchen but that circumstance will not invalidate the sale to him. In these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the milk purchased was not for sale in the Canteen and has been wrongly purchased by the Food Inspector. I am satisfied that the Food Inspector was fully authorised to purchase the sample of buffalo milk from the applicants kitchen. 6. It is also argued that there has been no compliance of Section 10 (7) of the P.F.A. Act, inasmuch as independent witnesses were not examined. I am satisfied that the Food Inspector was fully authorised to purchase the sample of buffalo milk from the applicants kitchen. 6. It is also argued that there has been no compliance of Section 10 (7) of the P.F.A. Act, inasmuch as independent witnesses were not examined. The Food Inspector has made a note in his inspection note that independent witnesses were called, but they failed to oblige. In these circumstances, there has been sufficient compliance of law. The trial of the accused is, thus, not in any manner vitiated on this ground. 7. It is argued on behalf of the defence that the milk in question was used for making curd which in turn was used in Dahi-bara. 8. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on the record, I am not at all impressed with this argument. 9. I have also carefully perused the statement of the defence witnesses, but even that does not inspire confidence. 10. Adulteration of milk is becoming very rampant. Such a social crime cannot be dealt with leniently. 11. Since the adulteration in the instant case was to the extent of 38 per cent in fat contents and 20 per cent in non-fatty solids, I am not inclined to reduce the sentence awarded to the applicant. 12. There is no merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The applicant shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence.