JUDGMENT H.L. Capoor, J. - Abdul Qayum has preferred this application in revision against the order, dated 30th October, 1975, of Sri P.K. Agarwala, Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor, allowing the appeal only in part and upholding the conviction of the applicant under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), but reducing his sentence to two months' rigorous imprisonment from a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- as awarded by the learned Magistrate. 2. It appears that Sri Bhatnagar, Food inspector (P.W. 1) detected the applicant carrying milk. When he was stopped and an enquiry was made, he stated that the milk was meant for sale at Nehtaur. A notice was given by the Food Inspector for taking a sample of milk and 660 grams, of milk was purchased on payment of ts price. Required quantity of formalin was added to each of the three phials in which the sample milk was divided. One phial was sent to the Public Analyst, one was given to the applicant and one was retained in the Office of the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Bijnor. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the milk was found deficient in fatty contents being about 8 per cent and its non-fatty contents by about 14 per cent, meaning thereby that it was adulterated. 3. The defence of the applicant was that the milk was not meant for sale. Two witnesses Khairati Shah (D.W. 1) and Azhar Husain (D.W. 2) were examined on behalf of the defence. 4. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, relied upon the statements of Rajvardhan Bhatnagar, Food Inspector (P.W. 1) and Lallu Singh (P.W. 2) as the eye witnesses of the occurrence. 5. After considering the evidence on record, and placing reliance upon the statements of the said eye-witnesses of the occurrence, and disbelieving the defence version and the defence witnesses, both the courts below arrived at the finding that the applicant was found selling milk, which, on being tested by the Public Analyst, was found to be adulterated, the deficiency in fatty contents being about 8 per cent and in non-fatty contents by about 14 per cent. The applicant was accordingly convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid. 6. This application in revision was admitted only on the question of sentence. The applicant was accordingly convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid. 6. This application in revision was admitted only on the question of sentence. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicant has stressed that this is the first offence committed by the applicant and that he has been in jail for about 12 days. In these circumstances, it would, in my opinion, meet the ends of justice, if his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, as no useful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail for a short period, the sentence being reduced to two months by the lower appellate court. 7. In the result, the application in 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 sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. He is on bail. He need not surrender and his bail-bonds are discharged.