JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This revision has been filed by Raghubar against his conviction and sentence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. A complaint was lodged by the Food Inspector against the applicant Raghubar on the ground that on 30th July, 1970 at 8 A.M. at Canal Road Niwari, Likhi who was servant of the applicant was carrying 45 K.G. buffalo milk for sale. M.P. Sharma (P.W. 2) who was the Food Inspector appointed at that time checked Latif after disclosing his identity purchased 660 grams of milk from him and divided the sample into three equal parts and one part was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst reported that the sample in question was deficient in fat contents by 25 % and non-fatty solid contents by about 43 per cent. After having received the report from the Public Analyst the Food Inspector obtained the sanction of the District Medical Officer of Health and thereafter lodged the complaint mentioned above. The applicant pleaded not guilty. He, however, admitted that Likhi was his servant and that he had taken milk for sale. The Magistrate found that the evidence brought by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubts that the applicant had committed the offence under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 12,00/- and in default to undergo R.I. for six months. He was further sentenced to undergo six months R.I. In appeal his conviction and sentence were maintained. Hence this revision. 3. Two points were urged by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of this revision. One of them was that the applicant could not be held liable for the offence which was allegedly committed by Likhi. Elaborating the submission the learned counsel argued that the sample of the milk was taken from Likhi and not from the applicant and, therefore, the courts below committed an error in convicting him for offence under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The submission made is not tenable. Section 7 of the Act lays down "No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store or sell (1) any adulterated food". The submission made is not tenable. Section 7 of the Act lays down "No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store or sell (1) any adulterated food". The expression "himself or by any person on his behalf" to my mind applies to the accused who either sells by himself or by a servant on his behalf any adulterated food which is ultimately found to be adulterated. It is, therefore, not correct to argue that under section 16 liability of the commission of the offence if any could only be that of the servant and not of the applicant who was admittedly the master. It has been noted in the judgment of the learned Session Judge that the fact of taking of the sample from Likhi was not disputed. Accordingly, the first submission has no substance. 4. The second argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant was that the District Medical Officer of Health was not shown to have applied his mind before granting the sanction and, therefore, the sanction granted could not be availed by the prosecution. The submission is equally devoid of substance. The papers brought on the record established that the Food Inspector had submitted a report along with the relevant papers before the District Medical Officer of Health stating all the facts therein and requesting him to sanction the prosecution of the applicant as well as that of Likhi. The submission has, therefore, no substance. 5. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, it appears that the courts below were wrong in imposing a fine of Rs. 1200/- on the applicant. In my opinion, the ends of justice would be met by reducing the same to Rs. 1000/-. 6. Accordingly with this modification the revision fails and is dismissed. He shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence. His bail bonds are cancelled. The amount of fine is reduced from Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, the applicant shall under go R.I. for six months. The stay order is vacated.