JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant was prosecuted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. According to the prosecution on 31-12-1977 the accused-applicant was found selling mixed milk of cow and buffalo. A sample was taken by the Food Inspector and was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was deficient in non-fatty solid contents by about 16%. Sanction was duly granted by the Chief Medical Officer, Etawah, and thereafter prosecution was launched. The trial court found the applicant guilty under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to six months R.I. and Rs. 1,000/- fine. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal as preferred which has been dismissed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah, by his judgment dated 14-3-1980. 3. In the present revision, learned counsel for the applicant has challenged the aforesaid two orders only on one ground. It has been urged that in the sample the fat contents of the mixed milk were found to be 5.10% and the non-fatty solid contents to be 7.1%. It has been urged that in view of the decision of a Division Bench in Criminal Revision No. 2041 of 1971 (Pooran Singh v. State) decided on 6th January, 1978, the report of the Public Analyst should not be believed. It has been urged that as the fat contents in the present case were above the standard prescribed, the analysis that the non- fatty solid contents were below the prescribed standard, was the result of wrong analysis of the sample by the Public Analyst. 4. The fat contents being above the prescribed standard in the mixed milk the finding of the Public Analyst that the non-fatty solid contents are below the prescribed standard seems to be the result of wrong analysis of the sample made by him. 5. The decision of the Division Bench came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Megh Singh v. State 1979 (1) FAC 59. 5. The decision of the Division Bench came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Megh Singh v. State 1979 (1) FAC 59. In para 6 of the aforesaid decision the Court has held as follows : "It may also be mentioned here that in the Division Bench case referred to above, this Court made observations with regard to the improved breeding of milch cattle in India and they also observed that "the quality of milk depends not only upon the quality and quantity of food given to a buffalo, but also upon its health." I have no doubt that these considerations must have been in the minds of the framers of law, who enacted the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act." 6. I am in complete agreement with the aforesaid observations made in the case of Megh Singh (supra). 7. As far as Pooran Singhs case (supra) is concerned, the Public Analyst was examined by the Court in that case and the court from the evidence on the record has disbelieved the report of the Public Analyst. In that case fat contents were so high that the Court came to the conclusion that it was impossible to hold that there had been any adulteration. In the present case the standard prescribed for mixed milk is 4.5% milk fat and 8.5% milk solids non-fatty. The ratio of Pooran Singh's case cannot, therefore, be applied to the present case. The sample of milk taken from the applicant was clearly adulterated and the conviction recorded by the two courts below cannot be said to suffer from any illegality requiring interference in this revision. 8. For the reasons stated above, the present revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him. His bail bonds are cancelled.