JUDGMENT S.K. Kaul, J. - This revision was admitted on the question of sentence and it is directed against the sentence and conviction awarded to the accused - revisionist under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to undergo three month's R.I. as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or, in default to undergo three months R.I. more. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that Sri R.N. Dubey, Food Inspector, Municipal Board, Etawah, on his usual round found the revisionist selling cow milk on 8th September, 1970, at about 8.30 p.m. in mohalla Takia, P.S. Kotwali. The inspector disclosed his identity and purchased 660 Mis. of the aforesaid milk from the accused-revisionist by way of sample, and after giving usual price, obtained a receipt and also gave a notice in waiting to the accused. The sample was divided in three parts and it was put in separate phials which were sealed properly. Thereafter, the sample was sent to the public analyst for report. The report of the public analyst was that the sample was adulterated. Thereafter, a proper complaint was filed in the court of (he Committing Magistrate who took cognizance of the same and asked the revisionist to stand his trial under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. The defence of the accused was that he was taking 3 or 3 kgs. of milk to Sri Din Dayal in mohalla Dhankutti in connection with a Katha. He, however, admitted that he received a sample phial of milk as well as price of the milk paid by the inspector. 4. The learned City Magistrate disbelieving the defence and believing the prosecution, sentenced and convicted the revisionist to undergo six months R.I. as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or, in default, to undergo three month's R.I. more. 5. An appeal was taken against this decision to the learned Session Judge. The learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence as noted above. 6. The learned counsel urged before before me that this accused has been behind bars for about 15 days. The case is a very old one in as much as the occurrence is of 1970. The learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence as noted above. 6. The learned counsel urged before before me that this accused has been behind bars for about 15 days. The case is a very old one in as much as the occurrence is of 1970. In view of these special reasons, he urged that although fine may be maintained, sentence may be modified in this way that period already undergone should be treated as sentence. I was not inclined to accede to this request, but then I found that the revision was admitted on the question of sentence and this revision has been hanging fire for about four years. The occurrence is of 1970. If now the accused is sent behind bars, it would be extremely hard not only on him, but on the members of his family. 7. In view of these reasons, I would maintain the conviction awarded to the accused revisionist, but modify the sentence in this way that period of sentence already undergone coupled with payment of fine of Rs. 500/- or, in default, to undergo three months' R.I. would be adequate to meet the ends of justice. The accused-revisionist is given two months to deposit the fine. With this modification in the sentence, the revision is rejected.