1. Two points have been taken in this revision. One is that the certificate of the Government Public Analyst does not bring the article, which was taken possession by the Medical Officer of Health of Allahabad, within the Prevention of Adulteration Act (U.P. Act 6 of 1912), and the second point is that the petitioner keeps ghee of two qualities and he had supplied the second quality to the Medical Officer of Health.
2. The facts are that the petitioner is a dealer in ghee in the town of Allahabad. The Medical Officer of Health took two samples of ghee which this man sells, and one of these samples was duly seized and sent to the Public Analyst to Government to test. The Analyst says:
The sample of ghee contained a large portion of an ingredient foreign to pure ghee and the sample was grossly adulterated.
3. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the article supplied to the Medical Officer of Health cannot be said to contain any substance not exclusively derived from milk, and unless the Court comes to that conclusion his client cannot be convicted under the Act I am of opinion that the certificate, of the Public Analyst does bring the case within Section 5 as in my opinion the use of the word 'adulterated' necessarily means that the sample of ghee sent to the Public Analyst contained an article which was used to debase the ghee and, therefore, could not have been derived from milk at all.
4. As regards the second point raised the evidence of the Medical Officer of Health is clear. I am, therefore, of opinion that there is no force in this application and I dismiss it.