JUDGMENT : P.N. Bakshi, J. The applicant has been convicted under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 1 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-by the Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri. In default of payment of fine he is to undergo 4 months' S.I. His conviction and sentence has been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, hence this revision. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 31st October, 1973, the Food Inspector went to the shop of the applicant. He found the applicant selling milk. The milk was kept in a Tanki. Suspecting the milk to be adulterated the Food Inspector purchased a sample of the same, after giving due notice to the applicant in accordance with law. The sample was duly sealed in three separate phials. One of the phials in possession of the Food Inspector was sent for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample was deficient in fat contents by 27 per cent and non-fatty solids by 1 per cent. After obtaining sanction for prosecution, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. I have also gone through the statement of the Food Inspector. Both the courts below after a consideration of the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the sample of milk did not conform to the standard prescribed under the rules and was adulterated. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding of fact recorded by the courts below to warrant interference in revision. 4. The Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that Section 2(i-a)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act did not apply to the facts of the instant case. The above section comprises of two parts-one is when the article sold by the vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser, and is to his prejudice; the second part relates to the article sold not being of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be. The above section comprises of two parts-one is when the article sold by the vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser, and is to his prejudice; the second part relates to the article sold not being of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be. Learned Counsel urges that having regard to the statement of Food Inspector there is nothing on the record to indicate that he demanded a particular type of milk or that the nature in quality of the milk demanded by him was misrepresented. In my opinion this argument is misconceived having regard to the circumstances of the present case. The applicant has not been held guilty of committing adulteration under the provisions of Section 2(i-a)(a) of the Act. He has been found guilty of adulterating the milk in question under the provisions of Section 2(i-a)(m) of the Act. Section 2(i-a)(m) refers to a case where the quality or purity of the articles falls below the prescribed standard. As will be obvious from the operative portion of the order of the Magistrate, the applicant has been convicted for an offence u/s 16(a) of the Act, which relates to adulteration of an article of food within the meaning of Sub-clause (m) of Clause (1-a) of Section 2 of the Act. Under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Food Inspector who takes a sample of food for analysis is authorised to give a notice in writing of his intention to do so to the person from whom the sample is taken. It is not necessary in every case that he must demand a particular type of food. He can take any article of food which he suspects to be adulterated or which he suspects would not prescribe to the standard laid down in the Rules. Serial A-11-01-11 of appendix 'B' has been framed under Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. It lays down the standard for different classes and also the designation of milk. The 'Note' which is attached to these rules is to the effect : that (I) when milk is offered for sale without any indication of the class, the standard prescribed for buffalo milk shall apply. It lays down the standard for different classes and also the designation of milk. The 'Note' which is attached to these rules is to the effect : that (I) when milk is offered for sale without any indication of the class, the standard prescribed for buffalo milk shall apply. A perusal of this chart indicates that Buffalo Milk, Cow Milk, Goat Milk, Sheep Milk, Standardized or Mixed Milk, Refined Milk, Toned Milk, Double Toned Milk, Skimmed Milk are all mentioned there. The standards have also been prescribed. If the Food Inspector demands any of the various types of milk, narrated above, or the vendor sells any of the above types of milk, then the standard prescribed for that particular type of milk will apply, but if there is no indication either way as to the type of milk of which the sample is taken by the Food Inspector, then under the 'Note' referred to above, which in my opinion is nothing more or less than a rule itself, indicates that the standard to be applied for analysis of such milk will be that which has been prescribed for buffalo milk. 5. I do not find any illegality in such a 'Note' being appended to serial No. A-11-01-11, of appendix 'B'. I also do not agree with the arguments of the Learned Counsel that this 'Note' travels beyond the scope of Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As a matter of fact, Section 2 itself contemplates the framing of Rules under the Act, and appendix 'B' which has been framed is quite in consonance with Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the sample has been correctly judged and found adulterated by the Public Analyst 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant has cited a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1959 CrLJ page 930. The facts of that case are wholly different to the instant case and it has no application to the circumstances of the present case. 7. The adulteration of milk has been fully established under Clause (m) of Sub-section (1-a) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 8. The facts of that case are wholly different to the instant case and it has no application to the circumstances of the present case. 7. The adulteration of milk has been fully established under Clause (m) of Sub-section (1-a) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 8. Having a regard to all the facts and circumstances and the extent of adulteration, I do not find any good reason in the instant case to reduce the sentence. 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 unexpired portion of his sentence of imprisonment.