JUDGMENT H.L. Capoor, J. - Karam Khan has preferred this application in revision against the order, dated 10th December, 1975, of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly, dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction of the applicant under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and a sentence of six months' R I and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default of payment of a fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months as awarded by the learned Magistrate. 2. It appears that Sri H.K. Arya, Food Inspector, found the applicant selling buffalo milk in mohalla Koharapir, district Bareilly. He purchased a sample of 660 ml. milk on payment of 75 paise as its price and obtained a receipt for it. As usual the sample was divided into three phials and the required quantity of formalise was mixed in them. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the Analyst showed that the sample was deficient in fat contents by about 32% and in non-fatty solids by about 22%. On the basis of the said report the applicant was prosecuted and tried as above. 3. The defence of the applicant was that he did not deal in milk and that he was illiterate. He further stated that the documents Exts. Ka. 1. to Ka. 3 did not bear his signatures. 4. In order to establish its case the prosecution relied upon the statements of the Food Inspector Sri H.K. Arya, P.W. I, and Ishtiaq Ahmad, Safai Naik P.W. 2. 5. Both the courts below after considering the evidence on record and placing reliance upon the statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and disbelieving the defence version arrived at the finding that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt against the applicant. They accordingly convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 6. The revision was admitted only on the question of sentence. This is the first offence committed by the applicant. The judgment of the Sessions Judge was delivered on 10th December. 1975 and at that very time the applicant was taken into custody. Since then he has been in jail which means he has served out a sentence of more than three mouths. This is the first offence committed by the applicant. The judgment of the Sessions Judge was delivered on 10th December. 1975 and at that very time the applicant was taken into custody. Since then he has been in jail which means he has served out a sentence of more than three mouths. In these circumstances it would meet the ends of justice if his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. 7. In the result the revision is allowed only to this extent that the conviction of the applicant under section 7 read with section 16 of the Act is upheld, but his substantive sentence of six months' R I is reduced to the period already undergone. The applicant is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in some other connection. The applicant is given two months'time from today to deposit the amount of fine of Rs. 1000/-failing which he would undergo the sentence awarded to him by the learned Magistrate.