JUDGMENT V.N. Misra, J. - This is an application in revision by Vijay Kumar against the judgment and order dated 2.7.1981 of Sri P.N. Lal, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, by means of which he dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1981 and maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicant under section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case were that Deep Singh, Food Inspector, Purqazi, visited the dairy of the applicant in Purqazi, district Muzafarnagar, and took sample of buffalo milk which was stored for sale. This sample on being sent to the Public Analyst was found deficient in fatly and non-fatty solids by 25% and 45% respectively. Sanction of the Chief Medical Officer was, therefore, obtained and the applicant prosecuted resulting in his conviction as aforesaid. 3. The applicant had a licence for selling cream and separata milk anil had set up a dairy to prepare cream. His contention was that the buffalo milk found in the dairy belonged to Trilok Chand which he had brought to the dairy to prepare cream out of it and this was not meant for sale. Trilok Chand was also examined as a defence witness and he too confirmed that the milk was his and was not for sale. Three witnesses were taken at the time when the sample was drawn. These were ; Krishna Nand, Hamid and Murtaza Ahmad. Hamid was examined by the Food Inspector and he was the own peon of the Food Inspector and was partisan, but Murtaza Ahmad was examined as a defence witness and he confirmed that the milk belonged to Trilok Chand which he had brought to this dairy to get cream out of it and it was not meant for sale. 4. It is, however, very significant that the applicant did not write any paper prepared in the dairy that this milk was not meant for sale and tie actually sold this milk and collected its price from the Food Inspector and also gave him a receipt but it was nowhere said that the milk was not for sale. 4. It is, however, very significant that the applicant did not write any paper prepared in the dairy that this milk was not meant for sale and tie actually sold this milk and collected its price from the Food Inspector and also gave him a receipt but it was nowhere said that the milk was not for sale. If this milk was not for sale and the owner of this milk Trilok Chand was also present in dairy then the applicant should have plainly told the Food Inspector that the milk belonged to Trilok Chand who was present and he may be given its price if the Food Inspector wanted to draw a sample from it, but this was not done. It was, therefore, not indicated that this milk was not for sale. The conviction of the applicant must, therefore, be upheld as proper. 5. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the applicant are hereby maintained. He is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail to serve out his sentence.