JUDGMENT V.P. Mathur, J. - This revision.was taken up for admission after the revision of the list. 2. Since no body appeared for the revisionist, I myself went through the record of the court below, which has been received here, and I was also assisted by the learned counsel for the State. 3. Umesh Chandra son of Jagdish Narain Dubey was convicted by Mr. V.K. Maheshwari, Munsif Magistrate VI Farrukhabad vide his order dated 19-6-84 in case No. 944 of 83 under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 4. On the papers which were placed by the Food Inspector before the revisionist, he put his signatures as Ramesh Chandra omitting the second round of letter 'C' (3) and making it look like 2(R) and gave out his name as Ramesh Chandra son of Kailash Chandra. Subsequently it was disclosed that his name was really Umesh Chandra and his father's name was Jagdish Narain Dubey. When the Food Inspector came to know of this fraud played by toe revisionist, the Food Inspector informed the Analyst accordingly. When the Food Inspector entered the witness box, he identified the revisionist as the same man from whom he took the sample of milk. The contention of the revisionist is that he was only present as a witness and signed one paper as such. Such a question was neither put to the Inspector nor was any evidence adduced in support thereof. The Inspector clearly says that he tried to obtain the help of public witnesses but they did not turn up to help him. No application for sending of the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory was at any stage moved. The Analyst's report clearly shows the deficiency of 9% in the fat contents. Hence the sample taken was of adulterated milk. 5. After perusing all the documents on the record of the court below I do not find it a fit case in which there should be any interference by this Court. 6. The revision is dismissed at admission stage.