JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 21st June, 1972, passed by the Sessions, Etawah, whereby he confirmed the judgment and order dated 24th of April, 1972 passed by the City Magistrate, Etawah, convicting the applicant under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/-. In default of payment of fine, the applicant was directed to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. On 22nd of August, 1971, Sri R.N. Dubey, Food Inspector, Etawah, found the applicant selling milk in a locality known as Station Baza-ria. The Food Inspector collected sample out of the milk in possession of the applicant. State The formalities prescribed under the law were duly complied with. One part of the sample was sent to he Public Analyst, who reported it to be adulterated. A complaint was, therefore, preferred for the prosecution of the applicant. 3. During his examination in the trial court, the applicant accepted that the sample was collected by the Food Inspector out of the milk in his possession. He, however, pleaded that the milk was of cow and mixed milk of cow and she-buffalo. 4. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence before it came to the conclusion that the charge under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was satisfactorily made out against the applicant. Taking, however, a lenient view the trial court awarded a sentence of fine of Rs. 1,500/- only against the applicant. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the applicant preferred an appeal in the court of sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, however, did not find any substance in the appeal and accordingly dismissed it Feeling dissatisfied with it, the applicant has come up in revision before this court. 5. The first contention raised by the counsel for the applicant was that the Food Inspector did not comply with sub-section (7) of section 10 of the Act and consequently the conviction recorded against the applicant stands vitiated. Sub-section (7) of section 10 only requires that a Food Inspector shall call one or more persons to be present while collecting sample from any person. Sub-section (7) of section 10 only requires that a Food Inspector shall call one or more persons to be present while collecting sample from any person. In the instant case it is apparent from the evidence on the record that the Food Inspector had called one Daya Shanker to witness the collection of the sample from the applicant. This Daya Shanker was also examined as a witness in the case. It cannot, therefore, be accepted that the Food Inspector at all violated the provisions contained in sub-section (7) of section 10 of the Act. 6. Learned counsel next contended that, according to the statement made by Daya Shanker P.W., only eight drops of formalin were added by the Food Inspector to the sample collected by him. Learned counsel stressed that there was no good reason for not accepting this part of the statement made by Daya Shanker and that, if that part of his statement was accepted, no conviction could have been recorded against the applicant for want of preservative having been mixed with the sample to the prescribed extent. I regret my inability to accept this argument. It cannot be ignored that the sample was collected on 22nd of August, 1971, while Daya Shanker was examined as a witness on 1st February, 1972, i.e. after a lapse of about 5 months. It appears that Daya Shanker did not correctly remember as to how many drops of formalin were mixed with the sample and he merely played on his imagination when he was questioned on that point. It is worthy of notice that in Ex. Ka-3, which was the report of the Food Inspector to the Medical Officer of Health, it was explicitly mentioned that 18 drops of formalin were mixed in each of the phials. This report was signed not only by Daya Shanker P.W. but also by the applicant. There is thus documentary evidence of the fact that 18 drops of formalin were mixed to each sample phial. In view of this documentary evidence, the stray statement made by Daya Shanker to the contrary cannot be accepted. Since it is apparent from the report Ex. Ka-3 that adequate amount of preservative was mixed, the conviction recorded against the applicant cannot be interfered with on the basis of the earlier referred statement made by Daya Shanker. 7. In view of this documentary evidence, the stray statement made by Daya Shanker to the contrary cannot be accepted. Since it is apparent from the report Ex. Ka-3 that adequate amount of preservative was mixed, the conviction recorded against the applicant cannot be interfered with on the basis of the earlier referred statement made by Daya Shanker. 7. Learned counsel then urged that the only deficiency found by the Public Analyst in the sample was in non-fatty solids. Learned counsel laid emphasis on the fact that there was no deficiency in fatty solids. Accepting that there-was no deficiency in the sample so far as fatty solids were concerned, the fact remains that non-fatty solids were deficient. The milk was, therefore, in any case, adulterated. 8. Learned counsel urged that the fact only non-fatty solids were deficient can be a ground for reducing the fine awarded to the applicant. This contention also appears to have been urged before the learned Sessions Judge in appeal and rightly negatived by him. Adulteration of food stuffs is assuming enormous dimensions and has to be seriously viewed. The minimum sentence prescribed for an offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Act is six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000/-. The trial court has already taken a lenient view inasmuch as the trial court did not sentence the applicant to imprisonment and let him off only with a sentence of fine. Under the circumstances any interference with the sentence awarded to the applicant may not be proper exercise of the discretion on the part of this court. In the above view of the matter I find no good ground for any interference at all in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed. The order dated 27th June, 1972 passed by this court staying realisation of fine is vacated. The applicant is, however, granted one month from the date of the receipt of the record by the trial court for depositing the amount of fine.