JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application in revision filed by Kishna Ram petitioner against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, dated November 20, 1975, upholding the petitioner's,conviction and sentence under section 7 read with 'section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as`the Act', but reducing the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment awarded to him by the trial court, to a term of six months rigorous imprisonment ; while maintaining the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000 and reducing the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine to a term of three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The case for the prosecution was that on January 28, 1974, at about 11 a.m. the Food Inspector Shanker Lal attached to the Municipal Council, Jodhpur, saw the accused carrying a drum containing cow-milk for sale at the crossing of Paota Mohalia, Jodhpur. The Food Inspector purchased 660 ml. of milk from the petitioner for 75 paise and after observing the necessary formalities divided the sample of milk into three portions. Each portion was sealed in a clean bottle by the Food Inspector in the presence of `motbirsk Out of the three bottles one was sent to the Public Analyst, Rajasthan, Jaipur, who made a report that the sample was deficient of minium, amount of fat content and solids non-fat and was, therefore adulterated. After receiving the report from the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector obtained necessary sanction to prosecute the petitioner from the local authority and filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of Municipal Magistrate, Jodhpur, from where it was transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, on coming into the force of the New Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of its case the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Shanker Lal, Food Inspector, P.W. 2 Salim and P.W. 3 Gudarmal. 3. The petitioner, on the other hand pleaded that he was running a tea stall and that he was carrying the milk for the purpose of preparation of tee at his stall and that the milk was not meant for sale. The petitioner examined four witnesses to substantiate his plea. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate considered the entire evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was found in possession of adulterated cow-milk for sale. The petitioner examined four witnesses to substantiate his plea. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate considered the entire evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was found in possession of adulterated cow-milk for sale. He, therefore, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months, Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, who partly allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence in the manner stated above. Hence, the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court. 4. The revision petition was admitted mainly on the ground of sentence only, because after careful review of the entire evidence on the record I was satisfied that no interference with the findings of both the courts below as to the guilt of the petitioner under section 7 read with section 16 of the Act, is called for. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not succeed in challenging the conviction. Apart from the evidence of the Food Inspector and the two `motbirs', there is the admission of the petitioner that the sample of cow-milk was purchased from him by the Food Inspector and that he was carrying cow-milk in a drum at that time. The petitioner, however, pleaded that he was carrying cow-milk for preparation of tea at his hotel and that he disclosed this fact to the Food Inspector then and there at the time when the sample was purchased from him. The petitioner's above plea finds support from the evidence of Bhudarmal (P. W. 3) in whose presence the Food Inspector had purchased the sample after observing the necessary formalities. Bhudarmal (P. W. 3) admitted in his cross-examination that the petitioner had informed the Food Inspector that he was carrying the milk for his hotel and not for sale. Hence, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner was found in possession of cow-milk at the time and place alleged by the prosecution and that a sample was purchased from him for 0-75 Paisa. It is further proved by the prosecution from the report of the Public Analyst that the sample was adulterated as it contained fat content 1-3% and solids non-fat 4 77%. It is further proved by the prosecution from the report of the Public Analyst that the sample was adulterated as it contained fat content 1-3% and solids non-fat 4 77%. The petitioner might not be a dealer in the cow-milk as such, but as he was found in possession of adulterated milk, his plea that he was taking the milk of the cow only for the preparation of tea at his hotel and that he committed no offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Act, is not tenable. The purchase of the milk by the Food Inspector from the petitioner amounted to sale and when the sample was found to be adulterated by the public Analyst, the petitioner has committed the offence with which he was charged. Consequently, there is no ground for setting aside the petitioner's conviction. 5. As regards the sentence it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence committed by the petitioner was a technical one and that the ends of justice would have been met if the petitioner had been awarded a nominal sentence by the trial court. The above contention has some force. The petitioner is not a previous convict for similar offence. He is running a petty tea stall. It appears that he was carrying milk for preparation of tea at his hotel, because no measuring pot was found in his drum of milk or in his possession. It is admitted by P.W. 3 Bhudarmal himself that the petitioner informed the Food Inspector that he was carrying the cow-milk for his hotel and not for sale as such. Apart from this the petitioner has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for a period of about two months and 25 days. Taking all these circumstances into consideration I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of six months'' rigorous imprisonment is reduced to a term already undergone by him and the fine of Rs. 1,000 imposed on him by the trial court is reduced to a fine of Rs. 300I-. In default of payment of fine to undergo fifteen days rigorous imprisonment. 6. 1,000 imposed on him by the trial court is reduced to a fine of Rs. 300I-. In default of payment of fine to undergo fifteen days rigorous imprisonment. 6. I, therefore, partly accept the revision petition filed by Kishna Ram and while maintaining his conviction under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, reduce the sentence or six months' rigorous imprisonment to a term already undergone by him. I, further reduce the fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) imposed on him by the trial court to a sum of Rs. 300/-(three hundred). In default of payment of fine the petitioner shall under-go rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. 7. The petitioner is in Jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in connection with some other case. He is directed to deposit the amount of fine of Rs. 300/- (three hundred) within two months from today, failing which action shall be taken against him according to law. *******