JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - Shah Alain has filed this revision against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi by which he dismissed his appeal and upheld the judgment of the Magistrate 1st class, dated 26th February, 1973, convicting the applicant for offences under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to three months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. The prosecution case was that on 28th November 1970 at 10.30 A.M. Sri Yasin Khan, Food Inspector found the applicant at Hanstale, selling adulterated milk. He gave him notice in form No. 6 and purchased the sample of milk for analyse is after paying him 66 p. In due course, the sample of milk taken by the Food Inspector was sent for analysis and was found to be adulterated. Learned Magistrate believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the applicant as aforesaid. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge found that there was no evidence on the record to indicate that the accused was taking the milk for selling. In other words, he did not believe the prosecution case that the accused was selling milk when the sample was taken. It may be pointed here that according to prosecution's own case, the sample of milk was taken while the accused was seen carrying it in a can. None of the prosecution witnesses staled that he had seen the applicant actually selling the milk. They inferred that the milk was meant to be sold as the applicant also carried a measure along with the milk can. Be that as it may, the accused did sell milk to the Food Inspector for purposes of analysis and charged him a sum of 66 paise. The milk on analysis was found to be adulterated. Technically, an offence punishable under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, was, therefore, made out against him. 3. As on the evidence produced in the case an offence under Section 7/16 was made out against the accused, the revision application was admitted only for considering the question of sentence. 4. Learned counsel for the State urged that, according to the law as it stood at the time when the applicant was found carrying/adulterated milk, minimum sentence award able for such an offence was imprisonment for six months. 4. Learned counsel for the State urged that, according to the law as it stood at the time when the applicant was found carrying/adulterated milk, minimum sentence award able for such an offence was imprisonment for six months. However, the courts below had sentenced the applicant to three month's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- only. In these circumstances, the sentence awarded by the two courts below does not call for any interference. 5. Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as it then stood Laid down that any person who sold adulterated food shall be punished with imprisonment for a period which shall not be less than six months hut which may extend to six years and with fine which shall not be less than 1,000/-. Proviso added to that section, however enabled the court to, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned by it in its judgment, impose for the offences specified sentence of imprisonment for a term than 6 months' or a fine fees than Rs. 1,000/-. 6. I find that in this case there is no evidence whatsoever on the record to show that the applicant was actually selling the milk. According to his defence when food inspector took the sample of milk for analysis, he was carrying the same for delivery to one Lallu Pahalwan. This defence has not been rebutted by anything in the prosecution evidence. It appears that the applicant was merely a mere carrier who was taking some body else's milk to Lallu Pahalwan's place. It is also possible that milk did not belong to him and that he did not know that it was adulterated. The applicant might have sold the milk to the food inspector not because he was a milk seller but because he dared not disobey him. He was at the time when the offence is said to have been committed only about 23 years in age. In view of applicant's age and technical nature the offence committed by him and the fact that there is no evidence on record to show that he is a regular milk seller, I think special reasons for dealing with him leniently, have been made out. The offence is said to have been committed as far back as 1970. In view of applicant's age and technical nature the offence committed by him and the fact that there is no evidence on record to show that he is a regular milk seller, I think special reasons for dealing with him leniently, have been made out. The offence is said to have been committed as far back as 1970. No useful purpose will be served by sending him to jail for a short time after the lapse of about 6 years. It has been brought to my notice that in connection with this case, the applicant has already been in jail for a few days. In the circumstances I feel that the ends of justice will be sufficiently met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone. 7. In the result, this application is allowed in part, while maintaining the conviction of the applicant for an offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced from three months' R.I. to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine and imprisonment in default of payment thereof are maintained. The applicant shall pay the fine within a period of two months' of the receipt of record in the court below. In case he fails to pay the fine as directed, he shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence awarded to him in default of payment of fine.