JUDGMENT 1. - On July 14, 1973 PW I S. L. Santoshi, Food Inspector found the accused carrying milk for sale. After giving the required notice he purchased 660 millilitres of milk. The sample was divided into three equal parts and each part was filled in separate, clean and dry bottles. One of the bottle was sent to the Public Analyst at Jaipur for analysis and the other one was given to the accused. The sample of the milk was found to be adulterated, as it did not comply with the prescribed standard and it contained 24% of the added water. After obtaining the requisite sanction the Food Inspector submitted a complaint against the accused-petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur. 2. The learned Magistrate after placing reliance on the statements of PW 1 S. L. Sautoshi and PW 2 Babulal and the report of the Public Analyst held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 3. The aggrieved accused went up in appeal, which came up for decision before the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, who by his judgment dated July 20,1977 partly accepted the appeal. The conviction of the accused-petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Act was maintained, but the sentence awarded to him was reduced to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Hence this revision. 4. The controversy in this case has been reduced to a narrow compass, as the learned counsel for the petitioner keeping in view the preponderance of evidence on record and the scone of revisional jurisdiction of this Court has not challenged the conviction of the accused-petitioner on merits and he has rightly done so. The only point pressed before me is that the accused petitioner was only a casual milk seller and that business also he has left from the date the complaint was filed against him. He is a cultivator by profession and man of scanty means. He has only one cow in his house and sometimes he used to sell the milk. He had no profit motive behind it. 5. He is a cultivator by profession and man of scanty means. He has only one cow in his house and sometimes he used to sell the milk. He had no profit motive behind it. 5. The offence committed by the petitioner was under sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 16 (1) of the Act and with respect to an article of food, which was adulterated under sub-clause (i) of Section 2 of the Act. The proviso to Section 16 of the Act is, therefore, applicable. The offence is alleged to have been committed in July, 1973. A period of four yean has elapsed in between the commission of the offence and the hearing of this revision petition. The petitioner is alleged to be a farmer by profession. Taking an over all view of the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice will be met if the sentence of fine awarded to the accused-petitioner is reduced. 6. I uphold the conviction, of the accused petitioner Sua under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but reduce the sentence of three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/-. In default of the payment of fine, he will further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 7. The revision petition is partly allowed as indicated above. *******