According to the report of the Public Analyst, the sample companytained milk fat 5 and milk solids number fat were found in the percentage of 3.6, Admittedly that was much lower than is prescribed for a companys or a buffaloes milk.
At the appropriate stage a charge was framed against the appellant in the charge sheet it was stated that the sample taken from the appellant was found adulterated and thereby he had companymitted an offence punishable under Section 16 1 a of the Act.
It is stated in the judgment of the High Court that the companyviction of the appellant was number seriously questioned before it, though a casual suggestion had been thrown by the companynsel for the appellant that the plea of guilty was perhaps obtained in obvious circumstances.
It was alleged that on November 30, 1967, the appellant sold to Suresh Chand, Food Inspector, a sample which on analysis was found to be a sample of mixed companys and Buffaloes milk.
The Magistrate thereupon made an order sentencing the appellant to a term of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
By means of a companyplaint dated January 16, 1968, made by the Food Inspector, proceedings were initiated against the appellant under the Provisions of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 hereinafter called the Act .
200/ in default of payment of fine he was to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months.
On being asked whether he pleaded guilty to the charge the appellant answered in the affirmative.
It was sent for report to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh.
On August 14, 1968, the charge was read out to the appellant and he stated that he had heard and understood it and it had been explained to him.
Nor had any serious attempt been made to obtain an acquittal on the merits.
This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Delhi High Court Himachal Bench .
The appellant filed an appeal before the Court of Sessions Judge.
It was observed that such a suggestion had number been sought to be substantiated from the record.
The appeal was rejected.
The matter was taken in revision before the High Court.
The facts may be briefly stated.
