JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - The applicant by means of the present revision challenges his conviction under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentences imposed thereunder. 2. According to the case of the prosecution on June 17, 1969, the Food Inspector found the applicant selling milk on the crossing of the Kanpur-Stanly Road. On being asked the Food Inspector was informed by the appellant that he was the salesman of Katra Cooperative Dairy, Allahabad. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the applicant and thereafter obtained 660 ml. of milk for a sum of Rs. 1.05 np. He divided the same into three phials and added requisite quantity of formeline and sent one of the phials to the Public Analyst. As on the sample sent to the Public Analyst it was not noted that the milk sent was that either of cow or that of buffalo' the public Analyst applied the standard applicable for buffalo milk and found that the milk sent to him contained 5.1 per cent fat and 8.9 per cent non-fatty solids. The applicant was thereafter charge-sheeted for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. The applicant pleaded not guilty and alleged that the milk purchased by the Food Inspector from him was not buffalo's milk but was cow's milk and therefore, the applicant could not be held guilty on the basis of the report submitted by the Public Analyst. It was also urged that the milk was, in fact, being taken by him to Murari Sweet House and that the Same was not meant for sale. Along with the applicant the Secretary of the Cooperative Dairy was also prosecuted. The Magistrate convicted the applicant as well as the Secretary under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and awarded six months Rigorous Imprisonment to each one of them but in appeal the conviction and sentence of Bhagwati Prasad, the Secretary of the Society was set aside and that of the applicant was maintained. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the applicant has come to this Court by means of the present revision. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the applicant has come to this Court by means of the present revision. 4. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant was that as the milk was not sold by the applicant to the Food Inspector representing that the same was buffalo's milk, therefore, the conviction of the applicant by applying the standard of buffalo's milk was illegal. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence on the record proving that the milk was offered by the applicant as buffalo's milk. I have carefully perused the record of the case as well as the two judgment of the courts below. It appears that the Food Inspector did not mention in the sample sent by him to the Public Analyst was to whether the same contained buffalo's milk or cow's milk, In the absence of such a description the Public Analyst was justified under rule A 11.01 to apply the standard applicable to buffalo's milk and to find out as to whether the same was adulterated milk. On examination as noted above, the non-fatty solid found was deficient. It would be seen, therefore that when the quality of milk was not disclosed to the Food Inspector, the applicant could under the law be prosecuted for the milk being not in conformity with that of the buffalo's milk. Reference in this connection may be made to a case of this Court reported in State v. Jalim Lonia, AIR 1960 All. 64 and to a Full Bench decision reported in Prem Chanel v. State, AIR 1961 All. 590 . The learned counsel for the applicant, however, pointed out that as the applicant was deaf he could not hear the question put to him relating to the quality of the milk which was given by the applicant to the Food Inspector and, therefore, the courts below committed an error in holding that it was not disclosed by the applicant to the Food Inspector that the milk taken was that of the cow's milk. The two courts below have disbelieved the same of the applicant that he was deaf. The two courts below have disbelieved the same of the applicant that he was deaf. The findings given by the two courts below on this controversy is one of fact In this view of the matter the conviction of the applicant cannot be set aside as has been urged by the learned counsel for the applicant. 5. The second submission made by the learned counsel was that the applicant was simply transporting or carrying the milk as a servant of the Cooperative Dairy, and, therefore, he could not be convicted for an offence under 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act inasmuch as he does not come within the category of persons who can be prosecuted and convicted for the offence contemplated by the aforesaid sections. The submission made is not acceptable. The evidence brought on the record by the prosecution established that the applicant was, in fact, selling milk on the crossing of Kanpur and Stanly Board. As the applicant was found selling milk he cannot escape the consequences. Accordingly, the second submission also fails. But keeping in view the circumstances of the present case, in my opinion the interest of justice would be served by reducing the sentence of the applicant from the period of six months to the period already under gone and a fine of Rs. 500/-. 6. In the result, while maintaining the conviction of the applicant under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act I reduce his sentence to the period already under gone and a fine of Rs. 500/-. The applicant is on bail. He need not Surrender. His Bailbonds are discharged. The applicant is allowed two months time to pay the fine. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall be taken into custody and sent to Jail for a period of four months.