JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Additional District Magistrate, 1st Glass, Almora and sentenced to three months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. His conviction has been upheld by the Sessions Judge but the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him has been reduced to two months R.I. The sentence of fine however has been maintained, hence this revision. 2. According to the case for the prosecution, Sri Harish Chandra Bhist, Secretary of the D. S. S. & A. Board Almorah had complained to the President of the Municipal Board that the quality of milk which was being supplied by the milk dairy has deteriorated considerably. On this report, the President directed Sri Goel, Food Inspector to visit the dairy for inspection. On 3rd August, 1969 at about 9.45 a m. the Food Inspector accompanied by Sri Harish Chandra Bhist reached the dairy. According to the case of the prosecution, the applicant was selling milk from a can which was kept at the counter. The notice under the Food Adulteration Act was given by the Food Inspector and 660 mis. of toned milk was purchased from him on payment of 0.80 p. This milk was divided in three phials, one of such phial was given to the accused applicant. Analysis by the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample was deficient in fat contents by about 17 per cent and in non fatty solids by about 1 per cent. On this basis, the applicant was prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. The defence of the applicant was that the milk in question was in the tonging process and was not ready for sale. He had made such a representation to the Food Inspector at the time the sample was taken but the Food Inspector insisted to take the said sample. 4. In considering the question with regard to the sale of milk, two witnesses were produced by the prosecution namely, Food Inspector Sri Goyal (P. W. 1) ane Sri Bhist (P. W. 2). It has come in evidence of the Food Inspector that the applicant was actually selling milk at the counter of the dairy at the relevant point of time. In considering the question with regard to the sale of milk, two witnesses were produced by the prosecution namely, Food Inspector Sri Goyal (P. W. 1) ane Sri Bhist (P. W. 2). It has come in evidence of the Food Inspector that the applicant was actually selling milk at the counter of the dairy at the relevant point of time. This statement is not however supported by Sri Bhist (P. W. 2) who had stated that it was some body else who had sold the milk. Sri Bhist has been declared hostile by the Court below. In this situation, we are left with the testimony of Sri Goyal (P. W. 1) to support the prosecution case with regard to the actual sale of the milk by the applicant. 5. I have carefully perused the statement of (P. W. 1). I do not find any reason to doubt the veracity of this witness. Therefore, the finding of the courts below as to the sale of milk, which has been concurrently recorded by both the courts has got to be accepted. 6. The next question argued before me is that of the adequacy of sentence. It is true that the sentence which has been given to the applicant is only two months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- whereas a much sever sentence could have been imposed considering the nature of the offence ; but on the admitted case for the prosecution, the position of the applicant aged about 20 years is of a show boy who has been employed by the dairy concerned. It has come in evidence that the sale of milk was normally undertaken by commission agents two of whom have been named in the evidence of the Food Inspector. None of these commission agents, according to the prosecution case were present on that date. It has further come in evidence that there are two boys who are employed by the dairy and that one of these boys was absent on the date in question. It. is in these circumstances that the task of selling the milk on that day was thrust upon the applicant. Being in employment of the dairy, it could not be refused by him. It. is in these circumstances that the task of selling the milk on that day was thrust upon the applicant. Being in employment of the dairy, it could not be refused by him. Therefore, while the conviction of the accused applicant for the offence in question has to be accepted, in my opinion, it is a fit case in which I should interfere on the question of sentence. The applicant as already mentioned is aged about 20 years. He has already been in jail for about a week. It is not in the fitness of things that he be directed to go back to jail to mix with hardened criminals. 7. I, therefore, consider that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone would meet the ends of justice. So far as the imposition of fine is considered, I am satisfied that the interest of justice would be served, if the amount of Rs. 500/- imposed upon him is reduced to a sum of Rs. 200/- only. 8. With this modification in sentence, this revision application is dismissed. Three months time is given to the applicant from today for depositing the fine, failing which he will undergo the sentence of imprisonment, imposed upon him by the court below.