JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly dated 23.5.73 upholding the conviction of the applicant under section 6/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The case of the prosecution was that on 3.12.1971 at about 8.30 A.M. Food Inspector Vijay Pal Singh took a sample of 660 ml. of milk after payment of its price to the applicant. On analysis milk was found to contain 5.2 per cent fat 7.1 per non-fatty solids. The latter quantity was thus deficient by about 16 per cent from the statutory standard prescribed for cow milk. 2. The applicant did not deny that the Food Inspector took sample from him but claimed that the milk was not meant for sale. The prosecution examined Vijay Pal Singh, Food Inspector, Mustaq Ahmad and Om Prakesh peon of the Food Inspector. The applicant also examined two witnesses in defence. The trial court accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted the applicant for the aforesaid offence. He sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In appeal his conviction was maintained but the sentence of line was reduced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 500/-. Hence this revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant but I am unable to find any error of law in the judgment of the two courts below. It was disputed before me that the milk was not meant for sale and, therefore, the conviction of the applicant on the basis of the analysis of the milk found from the possession of the applicant, is illegal. The word sale had been defined in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and it has very wide meaning. This would include even taking of the milk by the Food Inspector for the purpose of analysis. Hence it is not necessary to enter into other controversy pertaining to this aspect of the matter. 4. The other question urged was that as the aggregate of the non-fatty and fatty solids was more than the aggregate of these things prescribed by the standard Laid down by the legislature, therefore, the conviction of the applicant is illegal. I am not impressed with this argument as well. As the milk did not conform with the standard prescribed under the Rules the same was adulterated. I am not impressed with this argument as well. As the milk did not conform with the standard prescribed under the Rules the same was adulterated. Hence the conviction of the applicant has to be upheld. 5. Coming to the question of sentence it appears that the applicant was 17 years of age on the date of the offence. It would be hard to send him in the jail as several years have passed since then. The applicant has already served about 15 days imprisonment. It, therefore, appears that in view of the facts and the circumstances emerging from the present case the ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone and fine imposed on him is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/-. Counsel has stated before me that the imposition of line of Rs. 1000/- will not be treated as enhancement. 6. In the result, the conviction of the applicant is maintained but the imprisonment of 10 months is reduced to the period already undergone. In lieu of reduction of sentence of imprisonment a further sum of Rs. 500/- is imposed on the applicant. Thus the total fine payable by the applicant is Rs. 1000/-. The applicant is granted three months time from the date of the receipt of the record by the court below to pay the fine. In default the applicant will be taken into custody and sent to jail for six months R.I. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bond are discharged.