JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This revision has been filed by Jitai, the applicant, challenging his conviction under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly stated as the Act), sentencing him to six months' R.I. for the breach of having sold adulterated milk to the Food Inspector on 31-10-1971. 2. The case of the prosecution is that when Jitai, the applicant, was crossing Ilahi Bagh Road and carrying two canisters on his cycle, the Food Inspector disclosed his identity to Jitai and purchased 660 mls of milk at the rate of Rs. 1.25 per litre. He gave notice and kept the sample in three sealed bottles prepared in Exhibit Ka-1 and thereafter, sent the same to the public analyst. The public analyst appears to have examined the same and thereafter prepared a report on 2-12-1971, finding that the milk sent to him was deficient in its solid contents. The applicant was, thereafter, prosecuted by the Food Inspector. He pleaded not guilty asserting that the milk was not taken by the Food Inspector from him on 31-10-1971. The Magistrate accepted the case of the prosecution and finding that the milk sold by Jitai on 31-10-1971 to the Food Inspector was deficient and not in accordance with the standard prescribed by the Act, found him guilty of the offence and on this finding the applicant was convicted under sections 7/16 of the Act and was sentenced to eighteen months' R.I. Aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge. In appeal his conviction was maintained, but the sentence was reduced from eighteen months' to six months' R.I. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present revision has been filed by the applicant. 3. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the applicant was that as the prosecution failed to establish that necessary quantity of formaline was added by the Food Inspector to the milk obtained from the applicant on 31-10-1971, therefore, the conviction was bad in law. Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to Rule 20 of the Rules framed under the Act and urged that the prosecution could succeed only if it had established that the substance added to the milk purchased from the applicant on 31-10-1971 was in the same quantity which was prescribed by the aforesaid Rule. Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to Rule 20 of the Rules framed under the Act and urged that the prosecution could succeed only if it had established that the substance added to the milk purchased from the applicant on 31-10-1971 was in the same quantity which was prescribed by the aforesaid Rule. It is the common case of the parties that out of three bottles which was prepared on 31-10-1971 one was given to the applicant while the second one was sent to the public analyst, and the third one was retained by the Food Inspector himself The Food Inspector, however, did not produce the same in the court. The question, therefore, arises as to whether the preservative added to the sample was in the same quantity which is permitted under Rule 20. In order to establish that formaline added was in the same quantity, the Food Inspector in his statement before the Magistrate stated that 16 drops of formaline were added by him to each bottle prepared on the aforesaid date. Admittedly, the addition of 16 drops of formaline was in accordance with the rules. He was cross-examined by the defence on the said question, but nothing could be extracted which could shake his testimony. Accordingly, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution established that the prescribed quantity of formaline had been added by the Food Inspector to the milk taken from the applicant on the aforesaid date. In these circumstances, it appears to me that the fact that the bottle which had been retained by the Food Inspector was not produced by him in the court at the trial, was of no consequence. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, referred to a case of this Court, Baboo v. State of U.P., 1969 ACR 198 , and urged that in the aforesaid case when the bottle retained by the Food Inspector was not produced in the court, this Court held that the prosecution of the accused of that case was vitiated. This case is, however, distinguishable and is not of any assistance to the applicant inasmuch as it appears that in this case the Food Inspector did not mention the substance which he added as preservative nor the quantity or preparation thereof. This case is, however, distinguishable and is not of any assistance to the applicant inasmuch as it appears that in this case the Food Inspector did not mention the substance which he added as preservative nor the quantity or preparation thereof. In the instant cases as noted above, the Food Inspector has stated about the substance as well as the quantity or preparation of the formaline added to the milk. Accordingly, as there was evidence on record establishing the requirement of Rules 20 and 21 of the Act, the conviction of the applicant cannot be set aside on that ground. Reliance was also placed on Section 11 of the Act by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of proposition that the Food Inspector was obliged under the law to produce the bottle retained by him irrespective of the fact that the same was not summoned by the court. The submission has no substance. The purpose of retention of the bottle by the Food Inspector appears to be that in cases of dispute about the correctness of the report of the public analyst, the same may be sent to the Central Laboratory for examination. In the instant case, neither was the report of the public analyst challenged nor was prayer made for sending the sample retained by the Food Inspector to the Central Laboratory. Accordingly, section II of the Act cannot be pressed into service in the present case. 5. It, however, appears to me that the present is fit case for reducing the sentence of the applicant, from six months to the period already undergone and and to impose a fine of Rs.500/-. It appears that the applicant was petty milk vendor and he has already received a lesson, which is likely to be kept in his mind throughout his life. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that imposition of fine instead of imprisonment will not be taken as enhancement of the sentence. 6. In the result, the revision is dismissed, but the sentence of the application is reduced from six months' R.I. to the period already undergone and the applicant is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) in lieu thereof. The applicant is granted three months' time from the date of receipt of record by the court below, to deposit the fine. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) in lieu thereof. The applicant is granted three months' time from the date of receipt of record by the court below, to deposit the fine. In case of default in payment of fine, the applicant shall undergo the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him by the learned Session Judge. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.