JUDGMENT P.N. Harkauli, J. - Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra has preferred this appeal against the judgement and order passed by Sri D. P. Singh, Magistrate 1st Class Agra, acquitting Ram Gopal, respondent No. 1 of the charge under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The prosecution case was that on 18.1.1974 Sri B. P. Sharma (P. W. 1) the Food Inspector of the Nagar Mahapalika Agra found respondent no. 1 selling milk on the Jamuna Bridge and took a simple of the milk which upon analysis, was found to be adulterated inasmuch as it contained 7.5% milk solids other than milk fat and was thus deficient in non-fatty solids content by about 12%. It may be mentioned here that the fat content of the milk was found by the Public Analyst to be 6%. 3. Since the sample was found to be deficient in non-fatty solids content the Food Inspector, after obtaining the necessary sanction, filed a complaint under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against respondent no. 1. 4. The respondent No. 1 pleaded not guilty. He admitted that the sample was taken from him by the Food Inspector but said that an adequate preservative was not added to the sample. He also stated that he was not selling the milk but was taking 3 litres of milk for a relation. 5. In support of its case the prosecution examined the Food Inspector Sri B P. Sharma (P. W. 1), Than Singh (P. W. 2) and Arjun Das (P. W. 3) Sanitary Supervisor. Than Singh (P. W. 2) did not support the prosecution allegation about the taking of sample from respondent no. 1 and he was declared hostile. Sri B. P. Sharma (P. W. 1) and Arjun Das (P. W. 3) supported the prosecution version. 6. The respondent did not produce any evidence in defence. 7. The learned Magistrate held that it was proved that the Food Inspector had duly taken a sample and had added the requisite amount of preservative and that the milk was deficient in non-fatty solid contents by 12%. He however, held following the rulings of this Court in Rajan Lal v. State (1976) (1) FAC 125 and Sultan Shah v. State 1973 FAC 343 that since the aggregate of the fat and non-fatty solids content in the present case came to 13. He however, held following the rulings of this Court in Rajan Lal v. State (1976) (1) FAC 125 and Sultan Shah v. State 1973 FAC 343 that since the aggregate of the fat and non-fatty solids content in the present case came to 13. 5% and was thus more than the aggregate of the minimum prescribed for the fat and non-fatty solids content, the respondent no. 1 could not be convicted. In this view of the matter the learned Magistrate acquitted respondent No. 1. 8. Feeling aggrieved the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari Agra has preferred this appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant relying on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Municipal Committee Amritsar v. Hazara Singh (1975)(1) FAC 271 contended that the above mentioned rulings of this Court were not good law and that if the standard fixed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and rules framed thereunder, were not fulfilled by a particular sample then it has to be held to be adulterated. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the above mentioned ruling of the Supreme Court and I am of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has to be accepted. In Municipal Committee Amritsar (supra) the Supreme Court quoted the following passage from the judgement of the Kerala High Court in State of Kerala v. Vasudevan Nair with approval as laying down the correct law; "The standard fixed under the Act is 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 disadvantages of the resulting unpredictability uncertainty and impossibility of arriving at fair and consistent decisions are great." It is quite clear from this ruling of the Supreme Court that the standard prescribed by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the rules framed thereunder, must be adhered to and, if there is any deficiency it must be held that the article is adulterated. In view of this ruling of the Supreme Court the decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned Magistrate cannot be held to represent good law. 11. Now, on facts, the learned Magistrate has believed the prosecution evidence that the Food Inspector had purchased the sample from the respondent no. In view of this ruling of the Supreme Court the decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned Magistrate cannot be held to represent good law. 11. Now, on facts, the learned Magistrate has believed the prosecution evidence that the Food Inspector had purchased the sample from the respondent no. 1 and duly sealed it after adding the requisite quantity of the preservative. After going through the evidence I see no reason for disagreeing with these findings of the learned Magistrate. Indeed the learned counsel for the respondent did not even attempt to question the correctness of these findings of the trial court. 12. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid rulings of the Supreme Court, it must be held that the sample in question was adulterated and the respondent no. 1 was wrongly acquitted. 13. As for the sentence, considering that the matter is very old and that the respondent had been acquitted at the trial even though wrongly, I am inclined to take a lenient view. I think two months' rigorous imprisonment ; and a fine of Rs. 200/- will be sufficient. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The acquittal of the respondent no. 1 is set aside. He is convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He is sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine respondent no. 1 will undergo one month's further rigorous imprisonment. The respondent no. 1 will be taken into custody to serve out the sentence.