JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application in revision filed by Ram Karan against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, dated 10th December, 1976, upholding the judgment of Judicial Magistrate No. 8, Jaipur City, dated 17th August, 1974, by which the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-in default of payment of fine to further suffer three months' simple imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case against Ram Karan petitioner was that he was found selling milk by Milap Chand Food Inspector near bus-stand situated outside Chaudpole Gate, Jaipur. The Food Inspector suspected the milk to be adulterated. Hence he disclosed his identity to the petitioner and purchased 660 mis. of milk from the latter for 56 paisa. After purchasing the sample the Food Inspector divided it into three equal parts and filled each part in a dry, and clean bottle and added 8 drops of formalin to each bottle. Then the bottles were properly corked, wrapped an 1 fastened and sealed in accordance with Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The Food Inspector prepared necessary documents in this behalf and sent one of the bottles to the Chief Public Analyst for analysis. The Chief Public Analyst analysed the same and found it adulterated in terms of standard of buffalo's milk as it contained about 10 per cent of added water. The result of his analysis was as follows : Fat content 4-0% Solids non-fat 8.10% Cane, sugar and starch nil Upon receipt of the report of the Chief Public Analyst the Food Inspector obtained requisite sanction to prosecute the petitioner from the Administrator Municipal Council Jaipur and, eventually, made a complaint to the Judicial Magistrate Court No. 3, Jaipur against the petitioner for the offence under section 71 read with 16 of the Act. The Judicial Magistrate Court No. 3 tried the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and found him guilty thereof. Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as stated above. The Judicial Magistrate Court No. 3 tried the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and found him guilty thereof. Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as stated above. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, from where the appeal was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City for disposal according to law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and dismissed the appeal upholding the petitioner's conviction and sentence. The petitioner has therefore, come up in revision to this court. 3. I have carefully gone through the record of the trial Court and heard Mr. P.N. Dutt for the petitioner and Mr. S.B. Mathur for the State. Firstly, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that only 10 or 12 drops of formalin were added to the sample of milk instead of minimum 18 as provided by the rules. According to him, the deficiency in addition of formalin to the sample of milk is fatal to the prosecution case. In support of his contention the learned counsel invited my attention to the statements of Hot Chand P.W. 2 and Gopal P.W. 3 and contended on their strength that the Food Inspector did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the Rules in this behalf. Mr. S.B. Mathur, on the other hand, urged on the basis of the statement of the Food Inspector that there was no deficiency in addition of formalin to the sample of milk and that the sample was not found unfit for analysis on that score. I have considered the rival contentions. Hot Chand P.W. 2 no. 1 doubt admitted in his deposition that about 15, 16 or 17 drops of formalin were added to the milk in each bottle. But he also stated that he could not say definitely about exact drops of formalin added to the sample on account of lapse of 10 years. P.W. 3 Gopal Lal also stated that approximately 10 or 12 drops of formalin were added to the milk in each bottle but he admitted that he had not counted the drops added to each bottle Hence from their evidence it 1 cannot be definitely held that the minimum quantity of formalin was not added V as a preservative in the sample of milk. Apart from this, even if there was a deviation from the Rules relating to addition of formalin to the sample of milk, I such a deviation is not fatal to the prosecution case because the Chief Public Analyst, who analysed the sample did not say in his report that the sample had become unfit for analysis for deficient addition of formalin to the sample. Shri Milap Chand Food Inspector, on the other hand, stated in clear and definite terms that the minimum quantity of formalin was added to each bottle containing the sample. His evidence finds support from the contents of form No. 6 which he prepared at the time of taking the sample and wherein he clearly wrote that 18 drops of formalin were added to each bottle. Consequently, I do not feel inclined to hold that there was any deficiency in addition of formalin to the sample of milk sent to the Chief Public Analyst for analysis. 4. Mr. P N. Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not challenge the findings of the courts below as to the guilt of the petitioner on any other ground. Upon careful review of the entire evidence I am satisfied that the petitioner was found selling milk at the time and place alleged by the Food Inspector and that a sample of the milk which he was selling was taken from him by the Food Inspector for value. It is further proved by the prosecution that, upon analysis, the sample of milk was found adulterated in terms of buffalo's milk by the Chief Public Analyst. The standard of buffalo's milk was applied because at the time of taking the sample it was not written on the container that it contained particular kind of milk. 5. The petitioner's plea at the trial was that the Food Inspector purchased 1= kilos of milk from him and that the two motbirs namely Hot Chand and Gopal were under the influence of the Food Inspector as they used to supply milk to him. The petitioner produced Ganga Ram DW in support of his plea. Ganga Ram merely stated that l= kilos of milk was purchased from the petitioner but the price thereof was not paid. The petitioner produced Ganga Ram DW in support of his plea. Ganga Ram merely stated that l= kilos of milk was purchased from the petitioner but the price thereof was not paid. The evidence of Ganga Ram was rightly rejected by the courts below because it was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of the Food Inspector and the motbirs that 660 mis. of milk was purchased from the petitioner for 56 paisa vide receipt Ex. P 2, which bears the thumb impression of the petitioner on it. Hence, taking all the facts into consideration, I see no reason to disturb the findings of the courts below as to the guilt of the petitioner. 6. As regards sentence it was contended by Mr. P.N. Dutt that it is severe in the circumstances of the case. The circumstances, according to him, are that the petitioner was a petty milk seller and the deficiency found in the fat contents and solids non-fat contents of the sample of milk was marginal and the petitioner has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for about more than one month and three weeks and is no more a milk seller. Mr. S.B. Mathur on the other hand, contended that the petitioner cannot escape the prescribed minimum sentence merely because the sample was found marginally deficient in both fat as well as solids non-fat contents. I have considered the above contentions. There is no dispute that the sample of milk was found deficient by 4.0% in milk fat contents and 8.10% in solids non-fat. The deficiency found in the fat as well as solids non-fat contents of the sample of milk was no doubt marginal. But this much is certain that the sample did not conform to the standard laid down for the buffalo's milk. Of course the fact that the sample of milk was found marginally deficient in milk fat contents and solids non-fat contents may be taken into consideration in determining the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner has no previous conviction for similar offence to his discredit. It appears that he was a petty milk seller. He has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for about more than one month and three weeks. The petitioner has no previous conviction for similar offence to his discredit. It appears that he was a petty milk seller. He has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for about more than one month and three weeks. In my opinion the ends of justice would be met, if his sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment is reduced to a term already undergone by him and the sentence of fine imposed on him is maintained. 7. Accordingly, I partly accept the revision petition and while maintaining the conviction of Ram Karan petitioner under section 7 read with 16 of the Act reduce the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment to a term,already undergone by him. The sentence of fine and the term of three months simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine are, however, maintained. The petitioner is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Two months' time is allowed to him to deposit the amount of fine of Rs. 1,000/- in the trial court failing which necessary action shall betaken against him according to law.Revision partly accepted. *******