JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This case was fixed for orders on the stay application but at the request of the learned counsel for the applicant it was taken up today for final hearing with the consent of the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The applicant was convicted for an offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for selling adulterated cow's milk and the learned Magistrate First Class No. 1 Jaipur City, by his order dated April 25, 1969 sentenced the applicant to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2 Jaipur City while holding the applicant guilty of the aforesaid offence reduced the sentence to 6 months but the sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000/- was maintained. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while reducing the sentence took into consideration the fact that the milk which the applicant sold and from which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector was found to contain 6% of added water and further that the percentage of fat contents in the aforesaid sample was found to be more than the prescribed minimum standard, although the percentage of solid non-fats was below the minimum standard prescribed under the law. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the present revision application has been filed by the applicant before this Court. 4. In this revision application, learned counsel for the applicant confined his arguments only to the question of sentence. Learned counsel contended that although it is no doubt true that the sample taken from the applicant did not conform to the prescribed standard as it was found deficient in respect of solid non fats, yet the percentage of fat contents in the sample taken from the applicant was much higher than the prescribed minimum standard and that the sample contained only 6% added water. Learned counsel on the basis of the aforesaid facts submitted that the applicant deserves to be treated leniently so far as the matter of sentence is concerned. 5. In the State v. Badri, AIR 1965 Raj. Learned counsel on the basis of the aforesaid facts submitted that the applicant deserves to be treated leniently so far as the matter of sentence is concerned. 5. In the State v. Badri, AIR 1965 Raj. 152 similar circumstances existed as the fats contents in the sample of milk were found to be higher than the minimum standard prescribed under the law while the solid non-fats were found to be less than the prescribed standard. A Division Bench of this Court held in the aforesaid case that even if one of the contents of the milk is found to be deficient then the sample shall be treated as adulterated and even though the sample contained better percentage of milk fat contents, the applicant shall be deemed to be an offender under the law if the sample taken from him is found to be deficient in any other contents. However, it was further observed by their lordships that the circumstance that the sample of the applicant had better fat contents could be considered while awarding the sentence to the offender. In the present case the Public Analyst found that in the sample of cow's milk taken from the applicant, the fat contents were 5.8% while solid non-fats were found to be 8.02% while the minimum standard prescribed in respect thereof is 3.5 and 8.5% respectively. Thus, it is clear that the sample taken from the applicant had better percentage of fat contents yet as the sample in question did not conform to the prescribed minimum standard in respect of solid non fats the sample of milk taken from the applicant must be considered to be adulterated, yet the presence of higher percentage of fat contents should be taken into consideration while awarding the sentence to the applicant. Moreover the adulteration complained of in the present case is 6% of added water which can be considered to be marginal. Another fact which requires consideration in this case is that the Food Inspector had taken the sample of milk from the applicant on October 27, 1967 and the proceedings in this case have continued for more than 8 years. Considering all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that it would be proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant to that already undergone and to reduce the sentence of fine to Rs. 1000/-. 6. Considering all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that it would be proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant to that already undergone and to reduce the sentence of fine to Rs. 1000/-. 6. In the result, the revision application is partly allowed and while the conviction of the applicant is maintained, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to that already undergone and the fine is also reduced to Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. The applicant is allowed fifteen days' time to make payment of the aforesaid amount of fine.Revision Partly allowed. *******