JUDGMENT C.D. Parekh, J. - This revision arises out of the order dated February 12, 1970 passed by the S.D.M. Kanpur convicting the-applicant for an offence u /S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentencing him till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for two months. The applicant preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge, Kanpur and the II Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge by his order dated 17 July, 1970 dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicant. The applicant has now preferred this revision before this Court against the aforesaid order. 2. The facts of the case relevant for the purpose of this revision are that the applicant is said to be the son of one Ganesh Prasad who was carrying on a shop of `parchoon' in Sachendi Bazar, Kanpur. On 14 May, 1969 at about 4 P. M. Sri Pratap Singh, Food Inspector, inspected the shop of the applicant. He found the applicant carrying on the business of selling in the shop and on query it was found that the applicant has no licence for dealing with the commodities for which a licence is required under section 7 (3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The applicant could not show that his father Ganesh Prasad had either a licence for the purpose of running the shop. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant argued before me that in the circumstances of the case it was Ganesh Prasad who was required to obtain a licence and his son cannot be punished for the same. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the applicant. Under the provisions of the relevant rule if a person is found selling or conducting the business of selling in the shop a licence must be taken out. For the purposes of the rule it is not necessary as to who is the owner of the shop. The necessary requirement is that the person conducting the sale or selling or carrying the business for which a licence is required must have taken out the licence in the name of the owner or of the shop. For the purposes of the rule it is not necessary as to who is the owner of the shop. The necessary requirement is that the person conducting the sale or selling or carrying the business for which a licence is required must have taken out the licence in the name of the owner or of the shop. None of persons namely Ganesh Prasad the alleged owner of the shop nor the applicant had any licence in their favour, which was required in the circumstances of the case. 4. It has next next argued by the learned counsel that the son is being prosecuted for the act of his father. It appears that for this reason the learned lower appellate court has taken a lenient view of the matter but still the fine imposed on the applicant errs on the side of severity. In my opinion, the fine of Rs. 200/- is high. 5. I therefore, reduce the sentence of fine from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine the applicant shall undergo two months R. I. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the fine has been deposited. If the fine of Rs. 200/-has already been deposited a sum of Rs. 100/- shall be refunded to the applicant. 6. With the above modification in the sentence the revision application is dismissed.