JUDGMENT N. N. Sharma, J. 1. THIS revision is directed against the order dated 28-11-1981 recorded by Sri Ruri Mal, learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 1980 by which the conviction of appellant under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was affirmed. His sentence of six months R. I was also affirmed but the sentence of fine of Rs. 2000/- was reduced to Rs. 1000/- only and thus the order of learned II Addl. Munsif-Magistrate, Mainpuri dated 5-11-1980 in Case No. 126 of 1980 was modified. 2. PROSECUTION case was that on 21-6-1979 Sri V. P. Chaudhari, Chief Food Inspector of Mainpuri PW 1, purchased cow milk weighing 660 Ml. for sampling vide receipt Ext. Ka 2 duly signed by the revisionist and the witnesses. On analysis it was found to contain milk fat 4.0% and non-fatty solids 4.0%. Thus it was deficient in non-fatty solids by 53% vide report Ext. Ka 4 dated 13-7-1979. After obtaining necessary sanction from Chief Medical Officer, Mainpuri revisionist was sent up ; revisionist denied the aforesaid allegation ; learned trial Magistrate believed the testimony of three prosecution witnesses and recorded the conviction and sentence as given above. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. THE first contention put forward on behalf of the revisionist was that there has been non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 10 (7) in the present case. Sample of milk was taken at the gate of district Hospital Mainpuri where several shops were situated but no shop keeper or member of public was called to attest the receipt. It appears that in this case Sri V. P. Chaudhari purchased sample in presence of Ram Pr.akash, Food Inspector, PW 2 and one Nathu Lal who duly signed the receipt. Food Inspector further testified that he requested other witnesses also to come forward and attest the receipt but they did not listen to him. This statement finds a corroboration from his endorsement made at the time of preparation of receipt. His statement on this point remained unshaken and was believed by the learned trial Magistrate. 4. LEARNED Advocates for the revisionist relied upon Shanti Prasad v. State, 1978 ACrR 452. In that case Food Inspector did not make any attempt at all to procure the attestation by independant witnesses who were available on the spot. His statement on this point remained unshaken and was believed by the learned trial Magistrate. 4. LEARNED Advocates for the revisionist relied upon Shanti Prasad v. State, 1978 ACrR 452. In that case Food Inspector did not make any attempt at all to procure the attestation by independant witnesses who were available on the spot. Under the circumstances it was held that attestation by a person who was amenable to his influence was not sufficient compliance of the obligation cast on the Food Inspector. This ruling is not in point. The next contention was that the milk was not meant for sale and so the transaction did not amount to sale. Such contention was also repelled in Dammon v. State, 1982 P. F. Cases page 255. In that case contention of the revisionist was that he was taking milk for offering Pooja at the temple of Rangeshwar Mahadeo. However, this contention was rejected by the court and it was held that any sale of milk to Food Inspector as evidence by Ext. Ka 2 did entail the penalty laid by Section 7/16 of P.F.A. Act. 5. THE next contention was that the deficiency in non fatty solids was ignorable specially when it was marginal and fat was found in excess. In this connection reliance was placed upon Sultan Singh v. State, 1974 U. P. Criminal Decisions, page 195. It is a Single Judge decision. In that case milk, sample of which was taken was found to contain 5.5 per cent fat and 7.1 per cent non-fatty solids. THE standard applied was in regard to cow milk. According to the standard prescribed for cow milk fat contents should be 3.5 per cent and non-fatty solids 8.5 per cent. So the percentage of fat was 60 per cent higher than the required minimum whereas non-fatty solid content was 16 per cent below the minimum required by the Rule; shortage in non-fatty solids was by 16 per cent and so it was held that an inference could be drawn that no water had been added to the milk and under the circumstances it could be held that the cow from the udders of which the milk was drawn, was not given proper feed or that the Public Analyst's report was erroneous, but not the inference that the milk in question was not pure, so revision was allowed. 6. 6. THE next authority relied upon on behalf of revisionist has been reported in Ranjan Lal v. State, ACC 1976, page 52. In that case it was observed that the standard for cow milk prescribed under the Rules was minimum fat 3.5 per cent and 8.5 per cent milk solid non fat. In that case milk fat was found as 3.5 per cent and so was not deficient in fat contents. But non-fatty solids were less than the minimum i.e.. 8.5 per cent. THEy were only 5.6 per cent. It is also a Single Judge decision. It appears that such contention was repelled by Supreme Court in Municipal Committee Amritsar v. Hazara Singh, reported in 1975, ACC page 193. ln that case it was observed at page 195 :- " 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 disadvantages of the resulting unpredictability, uncertainty and impossibility of arriving at fair and consistent decisions are great." In view of this authority such contention has to be brushed aside. In Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana, 1984 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal, 1984, page 141 Public Analyst found that the sample contained 6.5 per cent milk solids and 7.8 per cent non-fatty solids. Thus non-fatty solids were deficient only by 8 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard. It was observed that even on marginal deficiency of milk solids non fat in cow's milk the revisionist was liable for conviction. It appears that in that case applicant got his sample analysis, by Director of Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad and it was found that milk fat contents was 6.4 per cent in excess than the prescribed standard but non-fatty solids were 8.0 per cent and so did not conform to that standard prescribed for cow milk in Haryana and so to penalty was attracted. This point in Dammon v. State, 1982 p. F. Cases page 255, Supra, was considered and was rejected, 7. IN Nagar Swasthya Adhikari Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur v. Guru Prasad, reported in 1982 P. F. Cases, page 237 it was found that the non-fatty solids in the milk was 7.8 per cent which was below the prescribed minimum of 8.5 per cent for cow milk. IN Nagar Swasthya Adhikari Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur v. Guru Prasad, reported in 1982 P. F. Cases, page 237 it was found that the non-fatty solids in the milk was 7.8 per cent which was below the prescribed minimum of 8.5 per cent for cow milk. Fat contents were 43 per cent which was above the prescribed minimum of 3.5 per cent. All the aforesaid authorities were cited by learned advocate for revisionist considered and it was held that the deficiency in non-fatty solids was not ignorable simply because fat contents were higher than the prescribed standard. I respectfully agree with the said observations. 8. FOR the reasons given above the revision fails and is dismissed. Revisionist is on bail and shall surrender forthwith to his bail bonds and taken into custody to serve out the sentence awarded to him. Stay order dated 7-12-1981 is vacated herewith. Revision dismissed.