JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition filed by Surja Ram arises against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated December 2, 1975, by which he dismissed the appeal of Surja Ram and upheld his conviction and sentence under Section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". It will not be out of place to mention that the petitioner was tried by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, for the aforesaid offence and was convicted and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer 11/2 months simple imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case against the petitioner was that he was found selling milk on Lakar Mandi Road, Sri Ganganagar, by the Food Inspector on September 15, 1972. The Food Inspector suspected the milk to be adulterated, so he purchased 660 grams of milk from the petitioner for a price of Rs. 1/- vide receipt Ex. p. 1. After purchasing the sample of milk, the Food Inspector divided it into three equal parts and sealed each part in one clean and dried bottle properly in the presence of "motbirs." Later on one, of the sealed bottles containing the sample of milk was sent to Public Analyst, who, upon analysis, found that the milk was adulterated is it contained about 7 per cent of added water. The Public Analyst sent his report to the Food Inspector, who after obtaining the requisite sanction to prosecute the petitioner under the aforesaid offence, filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. 3. The revision petition was admitted on the ground of sentence only, as I was satisfied that the petitioner was rightly convicted for the offence punishable under section 7 read with section 16 of the Act and there were no reasonable grounds for interference with the findings of both the courts below as to the guilt of the petitioner. The only point urged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sample of milk contained higher percentage of solid fat and lower percentage of non-fatty solid than the prescribed standard, and that it should not have been termed "adulterated" under the Act. The only point urged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sample of milk contained higher percentage of solid fat and lower percentage of non-fatty solid than the prescribed standard, and that it should not have been termed "adulterated" under the Act. It was further argued that if this Court arrives at a conclusion that the sample of milk was adulterated on account of having lower percentage of non-fatty solid than the prescribed standard, the fact that there was a heavy excess found in the fat content may be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance to justify a lenient view in the matter of sentence. Shri K. C. Bhandari, appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, argued that a minimum sentence provided under the Act has already been passed against the petitioner by the trial court and that there are no extenuating circumstances to justify reduction of sentence. 4. I have considered the rival contentions. In view of the report of the Public Analyst that the sample of milk was found deficient in non fatty solid by 62 per cent, it can be safely held that it was rightly termed "adulterated" under^the Act. However, there was admittedly an excess in the fat contents as is evident from the report of the Public Analyst. According to the prescribed standard, the percentage of the fat solid should be 5 percent in the milk of buffalo, but in the present case the solid-fat was 5.8 percentage. Thus there was much excess found in the fat content of the sample of the milk. Apart from this, the sample was found deficient in non-fatty solid by 62 per cent only. The circumstance that the milk contained higher percentage of fatty solid than the prescribed standard should have been taken into consideration in determining the sentence to be awarded to the petitioner. Consequently, I have no hesitation in holding that the heavy excess found in the fat content is a mitigating circumstance which justifies a lenient view in the matter of sentence. Besides, the petitioner is not a previous convict for similar offence and is a petty milk seller. The petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for about months. Consequently, I have no hesitation in holding that the heavy excess found in the fat content is a mitigating circumstance which justifies a lenient view in the matter of sentence. Besides, the petitioner is not a previous convict for similar offence and is a petty milk seller. The petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for about months. In my opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence of six months' simple imprisonment is reduced to a term already undergone by him and the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- is reduced to a fine of Rs. 300/-, and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The petitioner is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection with some other case. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of fine in the trial court within two months from this day. *******