JUDGMENT V.N. Misra, J. - This is an appeal by Chandrabali accused, who has been convicted under section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by Sri K.K. Chaubey, II Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. The prosecution case was that on 28-11-1975 at about 7.30 a.m. Narendra Nath Singh, Food Inspector, Municipal Board, Azamgarh, found the appellant selling buffalo milk at Dalalghat within the Municipal Board limits of Azamgarh. He purchased 750 grams of milk and paid Rs. 1.50 as price and divided this milk in three equal parts, and sealed it in 3 bottles after mixing formaline with it. One of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, U.P. Government and on analysis it was found that the sample was deficient in non-fatty solids by about 13%. A copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the appellant also and then he was prosecuted resulting in his conviction as aforesaid. 3. In this appeal 3 points were raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It was said that the sanction given by the District Medical Officer (Health) for this prosecution was not valid. Then it was urged that Gulam Hakkani the only witness, in whose presence sample was taken was an employee of the Municipal Board and was not independent and the third point raised was that since fatty solids were almost double of the prescribed standard, therefore, in spite of deficiency in non-fatty solids in milk, it cannot be said to be adulterated. 4. From the evidence examined it seems that the District Medical Officer (Health) gave sanction for the prosecution after looking into the papers. It is indicated from the evidence that he definitely looked into the complaint and the report of the Analyst and the sanction given by him was not challenged at any earlier stage It cannot be, therefore, held that this sanction was in any way invalid because it was given after looking into the papers and the sanction was also not challenged at any stage. 5. The papers show that two witnesses Gulam Hakkani and Havela Singh were taken as witnesses in whose presence the sample was taken. 5. The papers show that two witnesses Gulam Hakkani and Havela Singh were taken as witnesses in whose presence the sample was taken. It also seems that Havela Singh was very reluctant to sign as a witness and had to be persuaded before he signed. This Havela Singh was certainly an independent witness, even though Gulam Hakkani, being an employee of the Municipal Board, was not. Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides that at least one independent witness should be taken and such independent witness was Havela Singh. Therefore, this point raised by the learned counsel also does not prevail. 6. It was then urged that since the deficiency in fatty solids in this milk was found to be marginal it may be due to an error in analysis and it could not be said that the milk was adulterated. The deficiency in non-fatty solids in this milk was found to be 13% and the fatty solids in this milk were found to be almost double the prescribed standard. I was shown certain cases in which deficiency only in non-fatty solids was contained and it was stated that it could be due to an error in analysis. In 1975 (I) FAC 271 (Amritsar Municipality v. Hazara Singh) it was held that the standard fixed under the Act is one that is certain. If it is varied to any extent, the certainty of a general standard would be replaced by the vagaries of a fluctuating standard. The dis-advantages of the resulting unpredictability, uncertainty and impossibility of arriving at fair and consistent decisions are great. In 1980 (1) FAC 327 Puttu Lal v. State it was held that if the milk was found to be deficient in non-fatty solids, it must be deemed to be adulterated. The same view was taken in 1979 (I) FAC 59 Megh Singh v. State and 1977 (1) FAC 122 (Ram Shanker v. State of U.P.). Thus the view as laid down by the Supreme Court and other High Courts now is that any deficiency in non-tatty solids in milk must make the milk adulterated and the certain standard laid down cannot be varied. The milk found with the appellant must, therefore, be taken to have been adulterated and the conviction of the appellant must be upheld. 7. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants are maintained. The milk found with the appellant must, therefore, be taken to have been adulterated and the conviction of the appellant must be upheld. 7. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants are maintained. He is on bail and shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail to serve out the sentence already imposed on him.