JUDGMENT S.K. Kaul, J. - The facts giving rise to this revision may be briefly stated thus : 2. The Food Inspector P.P. Tiwari found the present revisionist Gulab Singh carrying 20 Kg. buffalo milk in two containers in Mohalla Krishnapuri, city of Mathura about 10.30 a.m. on 7th October, 1971. He asked for a licence which the revisionist could not produce. Thereafter, he disclosed his identity and then purchased a sample. The quantity of milk w-as 660 m.l. for which he paid 75 paisa. The relevant documents duly witnessed were prepared. The milk was put in three bottles in equal quantity and 18 drops of formalin preservative was added to each bottle. These bottles were labelled and sealed and one bottle was handed over to the revisionist. Another bottle was sent to the public analyst for report. The report of the public analyst was that the sample was deficient in fat content by 9.7% and in non-fatty solids content by 2.5%. It may be noted here that later on during the course of trial, the revisionist requested the trial court to send his sample of bottle to the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for report. The report of the Director Central Food Laboratory was that the milk fat was only 7% while milk solid non-fat was 7.9%. The Director said that he could not give any opinion about the exact nature of milk on the basis of chemical analysis because it was neither cow milk nor buffalo milk nor skimmed milk. The revisionist was informed of the report of the Public Analyst and thereafter the District Medical Officer (Health) moved necessary complaint in the court of Magistrate on the basis of which the revisionist was asked to stand trial under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. The defence of the accused was that he was not selling milk but was taking it to a patient per request. He also contended that the milk was separata. The learned Magistrate on an appraisement of evidence found that the charge was squarely brought home and as such he convicted and sentenced the revisionist to six months' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to undergo six months' R.I. 4. An appeal was preferred against the sentence and conviction, but the learned Sessions Judge maintained the sentence and conviction and rejected the appeal. 5. 1000/- and in default, to undergo six months' R.I. 4. An appeal was preferred against the sentence and conviction, but the learned Sessions Judge maintained the sentence and conviction and rejected the appeal. 5. Feeling aggrieved, Gulab Singh has come up in revision before, me The learned counsel submitted before me that later on the charge was amended on receipt of the report of the Director, and since the report of the Director was not specifically put to the accused, it had caused prejudice to him. It was also urged that the fresh charge should have been put to the accused to elicit his explanation. It was then urged that the defence of the accused that he was not selling buffalo milk and that it was separata should have been accepted. It was urged that in any case looking to the efflux of time, a lenient view may be taken inasmuch as if the accused is sent behind the bars after such length of time, it would defeat the very object of reformation. 6. So far as the first two points are concerned, I do not think these are of any value. Even if there was a defective charge or the report of the Director was not put to the accused specifically, it could not be said to have caused any prejudice to the accused because he was aware of the charge with which he was charged. The entire evidence was adduced before him and he had not only an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses but he also adduced evidence in defence. He also moved an application to get his sample tested by the Director and that request was acceded to. The report of the Director was on the record, according to his own requisition. Even if it was not put to the accused, it could not be said to have caused any prejudice to him. As regards the question whether buffalo milk was purchased or separata by the Inspector, we find that the accused had put his signatures on all the relevant papers which are exhibits in this case. What is remarkable is that on several Vakalatnamas, which are part of the record, the accused has signed. Nowhere he has said that he was illiterate. The positive evidence of the Inspector was that the accused revisionist was selling buffalo milk. In Ex. What is remarkable is that on several Vakalatnamas, which are part of the record, the accused has signed. Nowhere he has said that he was illiterate. The positive evidence of the Inspector was that the accused revisionist was selling buffalo milk. In Ex. Ka-I which is a notice and which bears the signatures of the revisionist, it is clearly mentioned that he was carrying she buffalo milk 20kg. in weight two 'peepas'. At no stage, previous to his examination under Section 342 Cr. P.C. the accused revisionist gave out that the Inspector had wrongly mentioned that he was selling buffalo milk and that actually the milk was separata. It appears to me that after the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst it was thought fit to take this defence for reasons manifest. That being so, I do not think the two courts below came to a wrong inference that the revisionist was selling she buffalo milk on the relevant date and time out of which the sample was purchased and later on that sample was found to be adulterated. As such, the charge levelled against the accused revisionist has been squarely brought home to him. 7. Coming to the question of sentence, I find that the case is of 1971. I think it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence already undergone is made substantive sentence. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default to undergo six months' R.I. however is maintained. The revisionist is given two months' time from the receipt of the order by the trial court to deposit the fine. The revisionist is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and his sureties are discharged.