JUDGMENT S.K. Kaul, J. - This revision is directed against the order of the learned Civil & Sessions Judge, Aligarh, who, while maintaining the conviction of the revisionist, reduced the sentence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act whereby accused revisionist was to undergo 3 month's simple imprisonment as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 700/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three month's further simple imprisonment. 2. According to the prosecution story, Sri M.L. Goel, Food Inspector, Nagar Palika, Aligarh, found the revisionist carrying milk in a 'tanki' on his cycle. Fie checked him near tube-well colony on the G.T. Road, Aligarh. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and told the revisionist that he would purchase milk. Thereafter, he purchased 660 ml. of milk from the revisionist and paid for it the proper price and obtained a receipt. The sample was divided into three phials and 18 drops of formalin of 40% power were added in each phial. One phial was given to the revisionist and the other was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst and the third one was kept in the office. The report of the Public Analyst was that the sample was deficient in non fatty solid contents by about 13%. Thereafter, a complaint was made in the court of the Magistrate by the District Medical Officer of the Health. The Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint, summoned the accused asked him to stand trial under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The defence of the revisionist was that he was carrying milk for one Surajpal who had asked him to bring the milk. The learned Magistrate found the prosecution story to be correct and disbelieving the defence, sentenced and convicted the revisionist to six month's simple imprisonment as well as to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. On appeal, while the line was maintained, the sentence of six month's simple imprisonment was reduced as stated above. 3. In revision two submissions were made by the learned counsel for the revisionist before, me. The first submission was that the defence should have been believed that the milk was not for sale but was being carried for one Surajpal. The second submission was that a lenient view should be taken in the matter. 4. 3. In revision two submissions were made by the learned counsel for the revisionist before, me. The first submission was that the defence should have been believed that the milk was not for sale but was being carried for one Surajpal. The second submission was that a lenient view should be taken in the matter. 4. So far as the first submission is concerned, the prosecution story is trotted out from the evidence of the Food Inspector as well as Safai Naik of Nagar Palika, Aligarh who were produced in the court below to prove the prosecution version. It comes out from the statement of Surajpal that the revisionist was carrying milk for him. It is significant to note that Surajpal stated that he required milk for 'Katha'. The house of Surajpal was at a distance of 16 miles. That being so, it is obvious that Surajpal who as a relation of the accused entered the witness box because he had a soft corner for the revisionist. In my judgment, it is amply clear that the revisionist has been rightly convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 5. Coming now to the question of sentence, considering that this is a case of the year 1971, I would reduce the sentence of the fine to Rs. 500/-. In other respects, the sentence is maintained. In default of payment of fine, the revisionist will undergo 2 months' simple imprisonment. 6. With this modification in the sentence of fine alone, the revision is rejected. The Revisionist is on bail. He should surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the sentence awarded to him. The Magistrate concerned will submit a compliance report within a period of two months,