JUDGMENT H.N. Kapoor, J. - Parmeshwari,applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 1000. The order was confirmed by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly, by his order dated 25-3-77 in Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 1975. 2. The prosecution case is that on 25-11-74, the Food Inspector, Suresh Agrawal checked the applicant,and took sample of the milk which was sent to the Public Analyst. It was found deficient in fat contents by 13% and non-fatty solids by 26% when was judged by the standard of buffalo milk. The applicant was duly prosecuted. The applicant took the plea that it was cow's milk. He also pleaded not guilty and pleaded that his signatures were obtained by the Food Inspector as a witness. Both the lower courts found the prosecution case proved against the applicant and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Feeling aggrieved the applicant has filed this revision. 3. One of the grounds urged is that the Food Inspector was not duly qualified to be appointed as Food Inspector and as such the sample taken by him was illegal. It was elicited in his cross-examination that he had got only High School Certificate with science and that he had not taken any training as Food Inspector after his appointment as such on 16-2-1974. The matter was not pursued further. It was not put to him whether he had undergone any training earlier or not. It was also not put to him whether he had been Sanitary Inspector. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that he was not qualified to be appointed as Food Inspector under Rule 8. Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that it was also the duty of the court or of the prosecuting counsel to clarify by way of further examination whether he had been a Sanitary Inspector and whether he had undergone training earlier. It would certainly have been proper that the prosecuting counsel should have re-examined this witness when some damaging statement had been made by him in the cross-examination but at the same time it was the duty of the cross-examiner to have proved fully on the basis of cross-examination that he was not duly qualified. One course open to me was to remand the case for this purpose. One course open to me was to remand the case for this purpose. Learned counsel for the applicant has, however, prayed that the case may not be remanded. Under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the presumption is that all official acts are regularly performed. 4. It was next argued that it has not been proved by any substantive evidence that the requisite quantity of formaline has been mixed. The Food Inspector has omitted to make a statement to this effect although it was his duty to have clearly stated about it. The trial court has relied on Ex.Ka-3 and Ex. Ka-4. Ex. Ka-3 is the notice which was given to the applicant by the Food Inspector at the time the sample had been taken. It bears the signatures of the applicant. It is printed on that notice that formaline has been mixed. The quantity of formaline has not been mentioned. Ex. Ka-4 is the letter which was sent to the public Analyst. It shows that 44% formaline had been mixed to the sample. That was according to rules. This letter has been proved and marked Ex. Ka-4. but it was certainly proper that this important fact should have been stated by the Food Inspector in his evidence also. Ex. Ka-3 bears the signatures of the applicant himself but the quantity of formaline is not mentioned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Ajit Prasad Ram Krishan Singh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 1631 that it had to be proved by the accused himself that the sample had deteriorated because of the non-mixing of the requisite quantity of formaline. In the present case there is only an omission on the part of the Food Inspector to have stated it on oath although there is documentary evidence in the form of Ex. Ka-4, showing that 44% formaline had been added. 5. It was further argued that there is Ex. Ka-1 which shows that sample was shown to have been taken by another Food Inspector at the same time. The witnesses were cross-examined on the point that there was a squad consisting of the present Food Inspector and some other Food Inspectors. It may be that some other Food Inspector was preparing the notice but finally the notice was given by the Food Inspector, Suresh Chandra, who actually took the sample. The witnesses were cross-examined on the point that there was a squad consisting of the present Food Inspector and some other Food Inspectors. It may be that some other Food Inspector was preparing the notice but finally the notice was given by the Food Inspector, Suresh Chandra, who actually took the sample. In my opinion it is not possible to draw adverse inference against the prosecution on the basis of Ex. Kha-1 alone. 6. Lastly it was argued that the sentence is excessive. The applicant is not a regular milk vendor. He did not hold any licence. It appears that he sold the milk casually only on the day when he was checked. The occurrence took place about 3 years back. The applicant has already been in Jail for about three weeks. The applicant is not a previous convict. Under these circumstances and after considering the extent of adulteration it is possible to take comparatively lenient view. In my opinion ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the sentence already undergone. 7. In the result the revision is partly allowed to this extent that the conviction of the applicant under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is maintained but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the sentence already undergone from six months R.I. His sentence of fine is, however, maintained. In default of payment of fine he shall go further R.I. for six months as already ordered. He is allowed three months time to pay the fine. The applicant is on bail. His bail bond shall stand automatically discharged after the fine has been deposited.