JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant and one Zahir Ahmad were prosecuted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. According to the prosecution case the applicant on 31-8-1976 was found exposing for sale the buffalo milk when R.K. Gaur Food Inspector took sample after completing the necessary formalities and serving necessary notice on the applicants. The sample after completing the necessary formalities was sent to the Public Analyst who found the milk to be deficient in about 12% in fat contents and 3% in non-fatty solids. After obtaining written consent of the Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarnagar the prosecution was launched against the applicant. 3. As the accused applicant Hamid had told the Food Inspector that he was taking milk of his master Zahir Ahmad and, as such, Zahir Ahmad was also prosecuted along with Hamid. 4. Before the trial court the accused denied to have committed the offence. Accused Hamid firstly made a statement that he was the servant of Zahir Ahmad and he admitted that his milk was checked by the Food Inspector. As far as accused Zahir Ahmad was concerned, he denied that Hamid was his servant. 5. Before the trial court the prosecution examined the Food Inspector Sri Agarwal and Mool Chand Garg. Accused Hamid in his defence examined Kalu Ram P.W. 1. Accused Zahir Ahmad did not produce any witness in his defence. The trial Court found that there was nothing on the record to prove that accused Zahir Ahmad was the master of accused Hamid. It may be stated that in the court accused Hamid denied that he was servant of accused Zahir Ahmad. The trial court believing the prosecution evidence only convicted accused applicant Hamid under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Accused Zahir Ahmad was acquitted. Feeling aggrieved accused applicant preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed. 6. In this case the accused applicant in his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. has admitted that he was checked by the Food Inspector and that the sample of the milk was taken and his signatures were obtained on papers. The defence witness examined by the accused applicant deposed that the milk was not sold to the Food Inspector and that the accused applicant was taking milk to his house as there were certain guests and Food Inspector forcibly took the sample. The defence witness examined by the accused applicant deposed that the milk was not sold to the Food Inspector and that the accused applicant was taking milk to his house as there were certain guests and Food Inspector forcibly took the sample. The aforesaid version was rightly disbelieved by the trial court as at the first stage the case of the accused applicant was that he was taking the milk of his master Zahir Ahmad. I have carefully gone through the two judgments and in my opinion, the finding recorded by the two courts below can not be said to suffer from any illegality requiring interference in this revision, The learned counsel has also not been able to show me as to how the findings recorded by the two courts below are erroneous. 7. For the reasons stated above the present revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds failing which he shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to him. His bail bonds are cancelled.