JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment of the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Meerut dated July 10, 1973, upholding the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by the Magistrate. 2. It appears that a complaint was filed by Zamir Ahmad, Food Inspector, against the applicant on the allegation that on 26.11.1971 at about 7.00 A. M. he was found selling cow's milk in Shahghass Bazar within the limit of the Nagar Malika, Meerut. The Food Inspector Zamir Ahmad (P.W. I.) purchased 660 Mililiters milk from the applicant. He divided the same into three parts and gave one or the bottles to the applicant and also sent one bottle to the Public Analyst for analysis. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, it was found that the milk was adulterated inasmuch as fat contents of the milk were 0.3 per cent, that is, deficient by 9 per cent than that or the standard cow milk. The prosecution produced two witnesses, namely, Zamir Ahmad (P.W.I), Devi Saran (P.W.2), Safai Naik. According to the statement of the Food Inspector Zamir Ahmad, which has been supported by Devi Saran (P.W.2), the sample was obtained from the applicant at about 7.00 A.M. on 26.11.1973 on payment of Rs. 1/- as its price. The applicant also produced two witnesses in defence. Believing the case of the prosecution, the trial court convicted the applicant for the offence under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to six months R.I. and imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Aggrieved by this judgment, the applicant went in appeal. The appeal was also dismissed. Hence this revision. 3. Counsel for the applicant urged that the conviction of the applicant is illegal inasmuch as the milk, which was taken by the food inspector on 26.11.1973 was actually skimmed milk and no standard has been prescribed for skimmed milk in the rules framed under the Act, therefore, the conviction of the applicant was illegal. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, such milk was not required to contain any amount of fat. The question which arises for consideration in this connection is whether the milk taken from the applicant was skimmed milk. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, such milk was not required to contain any amount of fat. The question which arises for consideration in this connection is whether the milk taken from the applicant was skimmed milk. To prove its case, the prosecution relied on the statement of Zamir Ahmad (P.W. I) and Devi Saran (P.W. 2), who stated that the milk was purchased by the food inspector from the applicant on being told by the latter that the same was cow's milk. The price of Re. 1/- paid for 660 mililiters also shows that it was meant for cow's milk inasmuch as it is a matter of common knowledge that skimmed milk is sold at much cheaper rate than cow's milk. I am informed that the present price of skimmed milk in the market is 80 paise per litre. Moreover, there is no reason to discard the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses as also the receipt Ext. ka-2 in which it is already mentioned that the sample was taken by the food inspector as cow's milk. 4. Counsel, however, referred to an relied on the application given by the applicant on 27.11.1973 to the Medical Officer of Health, Meerut, in which it was mentioned that the sample which had been obtained by the food inspector on 26.11.1973 was of skimmed milk. On the basis of the application, it was tried to be argued that as the applicant at the earliest opportunity took up the plea that the milk, the sample of which was taken from him, was the skimmed, milk, therefore, the courts below ought to have held that it was not the cow's milk. This argument had been advanced on behalf of the applicant in the courts below as well. Both the courts concurrently found that this application had been filed by the applicant in order to create defence for himself. What is material to be noted in this connection is that the application was filed on 27.11.1973 where as the sample of the milk was taken from the applicant at 7.00 a.m. on 26.11.1973. In order to explain the delay in moving the application, the applicant went to the length of saying that the sample was not taken at 7.00 a.m. but later in the day on 26.11.1973. In order to explain the delay in moving the application, the applicant went to the length of saying that the sample was not taken at 7.00 a.m. but later in the day on 26.11.1973. This statement clearly shows that he was advised to file the application on 27.11.1973 to the Medical Officer of Health for the purposes of creating defence in the case, if prosecuted accordingly, the two courts below rightly did not rely on the application and correctly found that the sample taken from the applicant was that of cow's milk and not skimmed milk. Moreover, the submission made by the applicant is one of fact, and as the finding of the two courts below is based on the appreciation of evidence produced by the prosecution as well as defence it is not possible to interfere with the same. 5. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, I do not find any special circumstance which may fall within the proviso to section 16 justifying the reduction of the sentence. 6. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him. The stay order is discharged.