JUDGMENT J.P. Chaturvedi, J. - This is a revision by Sher Singh against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mathur, dated 29th September 1972 upholding his conviction for an offence under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but reducing the sentence to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine the appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. 2. The prosecution case was that on 3rd October 1971 at 8.30 P.M. at Mohalla Naugaja in the town of Mathura the Food Inspector, Prem Prakash Tewari, found the applicant Sher Singh selling milk. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and gave him a notice in form No. 6 that he intended to take sample of milk for analysis. Accordingly he purchased 660 ml. milk and paid 75 Paise to the appellant. The said milk was divided into three bottles and to each of the bottles 18 drops of formalin were added. The bottles were packed, labled and sealed and one of them was sent to the Public Analyst. The Food Inspector also obtained a receipt for the amount paid by him to the applicant. The Public Analyst reported that the sample milk was adulterated. It was deficient in fat content by 1.3 per cent and in non-fatty solids by 4 per cent. The fat was 5.2 per cent and non-fatty solids were 8.6 per cent. The standard from which, the milk was judged was that of a buffalo milk. 3. A complaint was filed against the applicant who pleaded not guilty. He staled that he had been implicated out of enmity with the Jamadar. 4. The prosecution examined two witnesses. The Food Inspector Prem Prakash Tewari (P.W.1) and J.S. Pahiria, Safai Naik (P.W.2)). Both of them stated that the sample milk was purchased from the applicant and it was packed and scaled in three bottles on payment of its price. The applicant did not challenge the factum of sale of the milk and taking of the sample according to rules. 5. The applicant stated that the sample milk was cow milk and if the sample were judged from the standard of cow milk it was not adulterated. The Food Inspector Prem Prakash Tewari as well as J.S. Pahiria have deposed that the applicant stated that it was buffalo milk. 5. The applicant stated that the sample milk was cow milk and if the sample were judged from the standard of cow milk it was not adulterated. The Food Inspector Prem Prakash Tewari as well as J.S. Pahiria have deposed that the applicant stated that it was buffalo milk. The notice in form No. 6 Ext. Ka-1 and the receipt for the price of the milk paid to the applicant also contained a recital that the sample milk was of buffalo. In the circumstances the learned Sessions Judge was right to place reliance on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and to discard the statement of Babu Ram (D.W.1) who was not present at the time the sample milk was purchased. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that there was non-compliance of the provisions of section 342 Cr. P.C. and that the charge also did not mention the nature of adulteration. No doubt in his examination under the provisions of section 342 Cr. P.C. the trial court did not refer to the evidence adduced against the applicant. It merely said that the evidence had been recorded in his presence and that he was aware of the same. Similarly the charge did not disclose that the fat contents was 5.2 per cent and non-fatty solid contents was 8.6 per cent and there was deficiency of 1.3 per cent in fat content and 4 per cent in non-fatty solid contents. The applicant was told in his examination before charge how the sample was taken, how the price was paid, how it was packed and sealed and what were the contents of the report of the Public Analyst Ext. Ka-4. The applicant was present throughout when the statements of the witnesses were recorded. He was also furnished with a copy of the report of the Analyst. In the circumstances there was no prejudice to the applicant on account of the defect in recording his statement as well as in the charge. The sentence awarded to the applicant is not severe and does not call for interference. 7. The revision has, therefore, no force and is dismissed. The conviction of the applicant for the offence under section 16 read with section 7 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence passed thereunder by the appellate court arc maintained. The applicant is on bail to which he shall surrender. 7. The revision has, therefore, no force and is dismissed. The conviction of the applicant for the offence under section 16 read with section 7 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence passed thereunder by the appellate court arc maintained. The applicant is on bail to which he shall surrender. He shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence awarded to him.