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/- by the trial Court. In appeal his conviction was maintained but the sentence of imprisonment was set aside. He was instead convicted to a fine of Rs. 2000/-. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, and have also perused the impugned orders. 3. It appears that there is a Canteen run by the U.P. Government Employees Welfare Corporation, Kanpur, whose Assistant Manager is the applicant Mohan Lal Verma. The Food Inspector inspected this Canteen on 8th July, 1976. He went inside the kitchen and took a sample of standardised milk from a container of 10 litres which had been kept in the kitchen in accordance with the provisions of law. He divided the sample in three parts and bottled the same. He sealed the packets according to the formalities prescribed. He sent one sample phial to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that it was heavily deficient both in non-fatty solids as well as in fat contents. The prescribed standard for standardised milk was 4.5 per cent fat contents and 8.5 per cent non-fatty solids, whereas the milk contained only 2 per cent fat contents and 4.5 per cent non-fatty solids. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 4. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case have held the guilt of the accused-applicant fully established from the evidence on the record, 1 do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate courts to warrant interference in revision. 5. Counsel for the applicant has however, argued that the milk of which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector was meant for the preparation of tea and coffee and was not sold as milk at the Canteen in question and therefore, he submits that the milk was not for sale. This controversy appears to have been now set at rest by the addition of Explanation to section 7 by Act No. 34 of 1976, which came in force on 1st April, 1976 and which applies to the present case. This controversy appears to have been now set at rest by the addition of Explanation to section 7 by Act No. 34 of 1976, which came in force on 1st April, 1976 and which applies to the present case. Under this explanation an item of food, which is stored and used for the manufacture of any other article of food for sale, has also to retain its purity. If such an item is adulterated by the addition of water, then it would amount to an offence punishable under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This question has already been decided by me in, now unreported, Criminal Revision No. 1043 of 1979, Nabi Hasan alias Nathu v. State. As such I am not satisfied that there is any force in this submission. The applicant's counsel has also urged that certain remarks have been made by the Sessions Judge against other senior officers of the department, which it was not necessary for the Sessions Judge to make in his judgment since those officers were not accused in the case and were not before the court. This appears to be a reasonable submission. In my opinion, it was not necessary for the Sessions Judge to have made observations against the other senior officers and the department concerned, since they were not accused in the case. These superfluous remarks, which are embodied in the order of the VII-th Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur, dated 9th July, 1979 shall be taken as expunged. 6. This revision application is accordingly dismissed. The conviction of the applicant and the sentence of fine of Rs. 2000/- imposed upon him is maintained.