JUDGMENT S.K. Kaul, J. - This revision against the order of conviction passed by the Magistrate under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act sentencing and convicting the revisionist to undergo six months/R.I. as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default to undergo further three month's R.I. was admitted only on the quantum of sentence. 2. Before coming to the question of sentence, the prosecution story may be briefly stated thus. The Food Inspector S.K. Nigam reached the shop of the revisionist on 29th June, 1971, at about 1 p.m. The shop was situate at Baghpat Gate, Meerut. The revisionist was found selling milk at his shop. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and upon his enquiry he was told that the milk was admixture of cow and buffalo milk in equal proportions. The Food Inspector purchased 660 M.L. of quantity and paid a sum of Rs. 1.12. p. to the shopkeeper telling him that the sample was being taken for analysis. Thereafter, the sample was put in there separate phials to which 18 drops of 40 per cent formalin in each phial were mixed. Thereafter, the phials were properly sealed. The notice Ext Ka-1 was given to the accused and his signatures as well as the signatures of the public witnesses were duly taken who were also present on that occasion. Receipt Ext Ka 2 was taken from the accused for the price paid. Thereafter, one of the sealed phials was sent to the Public Analyst, Lucknow, for report. The report of the Public Analyst was that non-fatty contents were deficient by 25 per cent. On receipt of this report, the District Medical Officer of Health complained to the Magistrate concerned, and on receipt of the complaint the accused revisionist was summoned and asked to stand his trial under section 7/16 (i) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. The defence of the accused was that he did sell mixture of cow and buffalo milk in equal proportions on the relevant date at his shop. He, however, contended that he was not present when the sample was taken and that when he came back, he found the sample and the phial sealed. He was forced to sign the relevant documents. He admitted his signatures on Exts. Ka-1 and Ka-2. 4. He, however, contended that he was not present when the sample was taken and that when he came back, he found the sample and the phial sealed. He was forced to sign the relevant documents. He admitted his signatures on Exts. Ka-1 and Ka-2. 4. The learned Magistrate, finding that the prosecution story was fully made out on the basis of the Public Analyst's report which showed that there was adulteration in the milk, sentenced and convicted the revisionist as above. The revisionist went up in appeal but remained unsuccessful. That is how this case in revision has come before me. 5. The learned counsel vehemently argued that there was an insignificant proportion of so-called adulteration because, according to him, the Public Analyst's report a copy of which was with him and which he showed to me, revealed that fat contents were 6.3 while non-fatty contents were 6.6 since it was a mixture of cow and buffalo, the standard prescribed for buffalo is 6.1 fat contents and 9.0 for non-fat contents. As regards cow, the fat contents, according to the standard, should be 3.5 while 8.5 would be non-fat. If we total both these standards and divide by two, the mixture should have 4.75 fat contents and 8.75 non-fat contents. Thus, in this instant case fat contents were in excess of 1.55, while non-fat was deficient by 2.15. In all, therefore, there was a total deficiency of 6 per cent. The learned counsel argued that this was an insignificant deficiency and for this proposition, he relied upon a Punjab High Court ruling reported in The Municipal Committee Amritsar v. Jaswant Singh, 1975 Cri. L.J. 1968. In this case the deficiency was found to be 3 per cent. The Punjab High Court, on the basis of a ruling of the Supreme Court Malwa Co-operative Milk Union Ltd, Indore v. Bihari Lal, 1971 Food and Municipal Law report part II page 1 Criminal Appeal Nos. 235 and 236 of 1964 decided on August 14, 1967, observed at page 1972 that: "In this case their lordships of the Supreme Court added the percentage of both the contents of milk for purposes of ascertaining the quality thereof. In that case two samples of buffalo's milk were taken...............................................................what is generally extracted is cream and not the "other solid. 235 and 236 of 1964 decided on August 14, 1967, observed at page 1972 that: "In this case their lordships of the Supreme Court added the percentage of both the contents of milk for purposes of ascertaining the quality thereof. In that case two samples of buffalo's milk were taken...............................................................what is generally extracted is cream and not the "other solid. But that docs not prove that near perfection must be accepted in the work of the analyst when the difference from standard is only 1 per cent in one case and .4 per cent in the other. It is possible that a slight error in calculation or in insolation of fat might have been made. The variations is the solid contents of the milk Prima facie were not so great as to merit attention even in the first instance." The question arises as to what can be termed as insignificant percentage. I think if the percentage or margin of percentage is less than .5 it can be treated as insignificant because to that extent an error can be possible at the time of analysis, but if the merging is more than .5, it cannot be said that an error could have been done by the Public Analyst. In the instant case, the margin of error was .6 per cent .1 do not think it can be ignored. Thus, it is proved that the milk, the sample of which was taken by the Food Inspector, was adulterated. 6. We now come to the question of sentence. The case had started in the year 1971. We think interest of justice would be amply met with if the sentence is modified in this way that instead of six month's R.I. and payment of fine of Rs. 1000/-. The revisionist is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- alone. He is given three months from today to deposit the fine failing which he will undergo R.I. for three months. With this modification the revision is rejected.