JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - The list has been revised but none has appeared for the applicant. 2. The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and released on probation in view of his young age. The case was that on 8-7-1976 at about 11 A.M. the applicant in Chaurasia Jalpan Grah within the campus of Collectorate, Kanpur, sold adulterated milk to the Food Inspector which on analysis by the Public Analyst was found to contain only 2.1% fat contents and 6.6% nonfatty solids. The applicants' case was that the milk was not for sale. There were some other technical pleas also but all of them have been overruled by the courts below. In the memo of revision the plea of the milk not being for sale and stored only for preparation of tea has been reiterated. Even if this is accepted the applicant will still be liable in view of the Explanation to Section 7 added by U.P. Act 34 of 1976 with effect from 1-4-1976. Under this a person is deemed to store adulterated food even if such food is stored for manufacturing another article of food for sale. There was also a plea Section 13(2) of the Act has not been complied with but the evidence of the Food Clerk, Nagar Mahapalika, K.D. Tewari, shows that a copy of the Public Analyst report and an intimation, Ex. Ka-9, were sent by registered post to the applicant soon after the institution of the case. The plea that there has been a breach of Section 11(l)(i)(ii) of the Act cannot be countenanced. The fact that the sample was sent to the Public Analyst through the Local Health Authority is immaterial when the sample was received by the Public Analyst on 9-7-1976, the very next day. Nor is there anything on record to show that the Food Inspector had no jurisdiction to take the sample or was not appointed for this area. The applicant is a student and his already been dealt with leniently. There is no case for interference with the finding of conviction recorded by the courts below. 3. The revision, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.