JUDGMENT Oak, J. - This is a revision application arising out of prosecution under the U.P. Pure Food Act. According to the prosecution, the applicant was selling adulterated Ghee at Firozabad. The Food Inspector took samples of his Ghee, and sent them to the Public Analyst. It was found that the samples were adulterated. The accused was therefore prosecuted for having exposed adulterated Ghee for sale. The accused admitted that a sample of Ghee was taken from him. But he pleaded ignorance as to whether the article was adulterated. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused, and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one and half months and a fine of Rs. 100. He was further directed to pay Rs. 15 as the Public Analyst's fee and Rs. 10 as costs of the prosecution. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge of Agra set aside the fine of Rs. 100. In other respects the appeal was dismissed. Hence this revision application by Ram Dayal. 2. It was urged on behalf of the applicant that, the learned Magistrate wrongly disposed of the case before him on the footing that the accused pleaded guilty. Before sentencing the accused the learned Magistrate observed in his judgment that, the accused pleaded guilty. On a perusal of the record, I find that the observation of the Magistrate is not correct. The court put two questions to the accused. The first question was whether the sample was taken from his shop. To this question the accused replied in the affirmative. The second question was whether the Ghee was adulterated. The accessed replied that he did not know. It will be seen that the accused nowhere pleaded guilty. So this contention of the learned Counsel is well-founded. 3. We have however to see whether the conviction of the applicant is justified on the evidence on record. There is on the record the usual report of the Public Analyst. The report is to the effect that the sample was adulterated. It contained a small proportion of fat, foreign to the main article. This report was given after making due allowance for all incidental and unavoidable admixture in the sample. This report proves that the sample in question was adulterated. 4. It was urged oh behalf of the applicant that no question was put to the accused as regards the public Analyst's report. This report was given after making due allowance for all incidental and unavoidable admixture in the sample. This report proves that the sample in question was adulterated. 4. It was urged oh behalf of the applicant that no question was put to the accused as regards the public Analyst's report. It is true that the applicant's attention was not expressly drawn to the Public Analyst's report. Nevertheless, the accused was asked whether the Ghee was adulterated. This question gave sufficient notice to the accused as regards the case which he had to meet. 5. It is admitted that the accused exposed the Ghee for sale. It is proved that the Ghee was adulterated. The applicant was therefore rightly convicted under Sections. 4/42 of the U.P. Pure Food Act. 6. The Public Analyst did not give details as to the extent to which the article was adulterated. He merely noted that there was a small percentage of foreign matter. In view of the small percentage of foreign matter, a nominal sentence would suffice in the present case. It appears that the applicant has already spent some time in Jail before he was enlarged on bail. The imprisonment already undergone would be sufficient. 7. The revision application is partly allowed. I uphold Ram Dayal's conviction under Sections 4/42 of the U.P. Pure Food Act, but reduce the sentence to the imprisonment already undergone. The direction of the learned Magistrate that Ram Dayal must pay Rs. 15 as the public Analyst's fee and Rs. 10 as cost of the prosecution shall stand. His bail bonds are discharged.