JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. - Challenge in this Criminal Revision is to order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal vide which petitioner herein was held guilty of an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months as also to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months. The appeal carried by the petitioner against the order of conviction and sentence mentioned above, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide order dated July 18, 1987. 2. In brief, the prosecution case had been that on August, 14, 1986 at about 14 A.M. Food Inspector Piara Lal accompanied by S.K. Sharma, Deputy Chief Medical Officer went to Sukhija Dairy, Karnal. Petitioner, who was present there, was found in possession of 75 litres of milk in four drums. Out of it, 25 litres of milk was cow milk whereas remaining 50 litres of milk was separated milk. Food Inspector after stirring the contents of the milk, purchased 660 mls. thereof vide receipt Ex. PB. The milk so separated was divided into three equal parts which were put into three dry and clean bottles. Adding formalin in each of these, same were sealed in different parcels. One sealed parcel was sent to the Public Analyst, who, vide his report found that the separated milk contained 2.9% milk fat as against maximum prescribed standard of 0.5%. Complying with the provisions of section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the challan was filed against the petitioner in Court. 3. In the course of trial to bring home the offence against the petitioner, the prosecution examined Piara Lal Food Inspector PW1 and Dr. S.K. Sharma PW2. Radhey Sham PW was given up as having been won over by the accused. 4. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and stated that his signatures on the notice Ex.PA, receipt Ex.PB and spot memo Ex.PC were obtained forcibly and that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. In defence he examined Radhey Sham as DW-1 as also himself as DW2. 4. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and stated that his signatures on the notice Ex.PA, receipt Ex.PB and spot memo Ex.PC were obtained forcibly and that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. In defence he examined Radhey Sham as DW-1 as also himself as DW2. It is required to be mentioned that on the application filed by the petitioner, the second sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad for analysis which opined that the milk fats were above the maximum prescribed standard. 5. All that has been urged in support of this petition by the learned Counsel representing the petitioner is that the sample was found to contain 2.9% milk fat as against the maximum prescribed standard of 0.5%. In a situation, as is available in the present case i.e. milk fat found to be more than the prescribed standard, it has to be concluded that the petitioner had no mens rea inasmuch as, if he was to bring milk fat to the tune of 0.5%, he would have earned more. It is further being argued that the milk fat found to the extent of 2.9% had to be on account of failure or defect in the machine. I find no substance whatsoever in the arguments raise by the learned Counsel. Besides, the fact that the point raised in the revision, as noted above, was not taken either before the trial Judge or the appellate Court, the same has otherwise to be rejected as it is the prescribed standard as per rules which has to be adhered to. Non-adherence to the prescribed standards brings one within the vice of various offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel representing the petitioner, as noted above, thus, deserves to be repelled. 6. Finding no merit in this petition, I dismiss the same. Revision dismissed.