JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This revision arises out of the Judgment and order dated March 20, 1972 passed by Vth Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant by City Magistrate, Gorakhpur. 2. The facts leading to this revision can briefly be stated as following :- 3. On 29th November, 1970 at about 7.30 A.M. Sri P.P. Dubey, Food Inspector, Gorakhpur collected sample out of the milk in the possession of the applicant. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who reported it to be adulterated. A complaint was, therefore, filed for the prosecution of the applicant under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The applicant pleaded that he was not carrying the milk for sale but that he was taking it for delivery to Ram Bachan Mall. 4. The trial Court on a consideration of the evidence on record concluded that the charge under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was made out beyond reasonable doubt and, in the result, convicting him thereunder, sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and four months. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence he filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions at Gorakhpur. The Vth Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, found that it was devoid of substance and dismissed in toto. Dissatisfied with it. The applicant has come up in revision before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant stressed that there is no reliable evidence in the instant case in support of the fact that the mandatory provision contained in R. 20 of the rules framed under the Act was complied with. It was stressed by him that even though Sri P.P. Dubey, Food Inspector stated at the outset that the formalin had been mixed, he conceded in cross-examination that there was no paper on the basis of which he could make such a statement. Learned counsel urged that since no preservative was mixed to the sample, the report of the Public Analyst could not be implicitly relied upon and the applicant could not be convicted. 6. On a perusal of the record, however, I find that a memo was prepared by Sri P.P. Dubey, Food Inspector at the same time, when the sample was collected. 6. On a perusal of the record, however, I find that a memo was prepared by Sri P.P. Dubey, Food Inspector at the same time, when the sample was collected. This memo is Ex. Ka-3 on the spot. In the proforma of this memo there is a column in which the nature and quality of preservative added to the sample has to be mentioned. It is expressly stated in that column that formalin was added to the sample in the proportion of 2 drops to an ounce. Since this paper was prepared on the spot, I see no reason why reliance should not be placed on it together with the statement made by the Food Inspector in the examination-in-chief. It appears that the learned counsel cross-examining the Food Inspector suggested to him in cross-examination, without himself looking into the papers, that the fact of formalin having been mixed was not mentioned in any of the papers, and the Food Inspector also without caring to look into the papers replied in the affirmative. This cannot be applauded. In any case in view of the statement made by the Food Inspector in the examination-in-chief and the clear recital contained in the memo (Ext. Ka-3), the contention raised on behalf of the applicant that no preservative was mixed to the sample cannot be accepted. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly urged that in any case the sentence of one year and four months R. I. is excessive and should be reduced. There appears some substance in this argument. It does not appear from the record that the applicant was a previous convict. The total amount of milk in his possession was 5 Kg. It would, therefore, meet the ends of justice if the sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to six months' R. I. and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 8. This revision is accordingly allowed to this extent only that while the conviction recorded against the applicant under section 7 read with section 16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act is maintained, the sentence of one year and four months' R. I. awarded to the applicant by the Courts below is reduced to six months R. I. and to a fine of Rs 10S0/-. In default of payment of fine the applicant shall further undergo three months' R. I. The applicant is on bail. In default of payment of fine the applicant shall further undergo three months' R. I. The applicant is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith to serve out his sentence as modified by this Court. His bail bonds are cancelled.