JUDGMENT H.L. Capoor, J. - Gulab has referred this application in revision against the order, dated 6th June, 1972, of Sri R.B. Lal, Sessions Judge, Mathura, dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction of the applicant recorded by the learned Magistrate under section 6 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), but reducing his sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment to two months' rigorous imprisonment and the fine of Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 250/-. 2. Sri B.P. Jain, Food Inspector, found the applicant Gulab carrying 20 Kg. milk of she-buffalo in a milk-can on 7th March, 1971, at about 10 00' clock in the morning near Raya Block Office. The prosecution version is that the Food Inspector having disclosed his identity to the applicant served him with a notice under Rule 12 of the Rules framed under the Act and purchased 600 M l. milk for 60 paisa from the applicant and obtained a receipt (Ex. Ka-2) for it. The milk, as usual, was divided in three equal phials, in each of which 16 drops of formalin were added. One bottle was given to the applicant, one was retained in the Office of the Swasthya Adhikari, and one was sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the milk was deficient in fact contents by 170/0 and in non-fatty solids by 30/0 and hence it was adulterated. 3. The applicant denied to have committed any offence and stated in his defence that the Pradhan of his village had taken milk from the dairy at Raya and had given it to the applicant for being carried to village Suraj. He denied to have been either selling milk or to have given the sample of milk to the Food Inspector. He further added that the Food Inspector had taken the sample forcibly and had obtained his signatures and thumb-marks on several papers, and, in fact, no price was paid to him, nor any bottle of sample milk was given to him. Two witnesses were examined in support of the defence. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Sri B.P. Jain, Food Inspector (P.W. 1) and Raghubir Singh (P.W. 2) as the witnesses of fact. Two witnesses were examined in support of the defence. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Sri B.P. Jain, Food Inspector (P.W. 1) and Raghubir Singh (P.W. 2) as the witnesses of fact. Raghubir Singh, However, having supported the prosecution case in its entirety in the examination in chief, admitted in his cross-examination that he did not remember as to whether the price of the milk taken as a sample was given to the applicant by the Food Inspector or not. He was thus declared hostile by the prosecution. 5. The two courts below, after considering the evidence on record, and placing reliance upon the statement of the Food Inspector coupled with the statement of Raghubir Singh to the extent that it supported the prosecution case, and discarding the defence version and disbelieving the defence witnesses, arrived at the finding that the Food Inspector had taken a sample of milk from the applicant and it was proved that the milk sold by the applicant to him on payment of a price, as on the receipt, the signatures of the applicant and Raghubir Singh found place. They accordingly convicted and sentenced the applicant, as aforesaid. 6. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicant, has strenuously urged before me that Raghubir Singh being declared hostile and he not having supported the prosecution case, no reliance should have been placed upon his testimony, with the result that the solitary testimony of the Food Inspector was left on the record, and he being an interested witness, it could not be said to have been proved, beyond doubt, by the prosecution that the said sale took place, as alleged by the prosecution. I have gone through the statement of Raghubir Singh, and he having stated that the sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector in his presence and the receipt which was obtained by the Food Inspector, found his signatures, it cannot be doubted that this witness stated that the price of the milk was not paid in his presence merely to support the applicant. In any case, the statement of Raghubir taken as a whole, it is proved that the sample of milk was taken from the applicant and the price was paid to him. Thus, the sale was fully established. In any case, the statement of Raghubir taken as a whole, it is proved that the sample of milk was taken from the applicant and the price was paid to him. Thus, the sale was fully established. It is not disputed before me that the milk was found deficient both in fact and non-fatty solid contents as found by the Public Analyst. Thus, an offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Act, was in fact, committed by the applicant and he was rightly convicted by the courts below. 7. Taking, however, into consideration the fact that this was the first offence committed by the applicant, it would, in my opinion, meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is set aside, and the fine of Rs. 250/- as reduced by the learned Sessions Judge, is maintained. 8. In the result, the application in revision is allowed only to this extent that the conviction of the applicant is upheld, but his sentence of imprisonment is set aside. The fine of Rs. 250/- and the sentence in default, as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, is, however, maintained. I am informed by the learned counsel for the applicant that the fine has already been paid by the applicant. If it is so, he need not surrender and his bail, bonds would stand discharged.