JUDGMENT V.N. Verma, J. - This revision is directed against an order dated 24-10-73 passed by Sessions Judge Jhansi confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the Applicant under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration 2. The prosecution story is that on 1-10-71, at about 6 A.M., Sri R.P. Srivastava, Food Inspector, Vikas Khand, Babina, was on duty near village Chhota Mankuan, He saw the applicant carrying milk to Babina Cantt. for sale. He stopped the applicant and asked him to show his licence. The applicant told him that he held a licence for selling milk, but he did not have it in his possession at the time. The Food Inspector thereupon took a sample of milk which the applicant disclosed to be buffalo milk. It was divided in three equal parts and each part was kept and sealed in a phial in accordance with law. One of the sealed phials was sent to Public Analyst for analysis and report. The sample was found to be deficient in fat content by about 32 per cent. Prosecution under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was launched against the applicant. 3. The applicant pleaded not guilty. He alleged that the Food Inspector had not taken any sample of milk from him. 4. The learned Magistrate found the prosecution case fully established against the applicant and he therefore, convicted and sentenced him to six months R.I. and a line of Rs. 1,000/-. The applicant went up in appeal, but in vain. Aggrieved, he has come up in revision to this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant did not press this revision before me on merits. He addressed me on the question of sentence only. His contention is that the sentence which had been awarded to the applicant in this case was very harsh and it was, therefore, a fit case in which this Court should interfere. He based his contention on three grounds : one was that the applicant was petty milk vendor and he has left selling milk, the second was that the adulteration found in the milk of the applicant was of low order and the third was that this incident had taken place about six years back and after a lapse of such a long time it was not proper that the applicant should be sent to jail again. I think there is force in the contention made by the learned counsel. The fact that the applicant was a petty milk vendor, is not in dispute before me. It is also a fact that the adulteration found in the milk was not much. In the buffalo milk the fat content should be 6 per cent and non-fatty solids content 9 per cent. In the instant case the fat content was found to be 4.5% and non-fatty solid contents 6.1%. Obviously, therefore, the adulteration was not much. Considering these facts and also keeping in view the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1971, I do not think any useful purpose would be served by sending the applicant to jail again. He has already remained in jail for about 30 days. I think the ends of justice would be served if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone. The sentence of tine of Rs. 1,000/-, however, called for no interference. 6. In the result, I dismiss this revision but with the modification that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine is, however, confirmed. The applicant is allowed two months' time to pay the fine imposed upon him. This period of two months will be reckoned from the date the file of this case reaches the court below. In default of payment of fine, as ordered by the courts below, he will undergo three months' R.I. 7. The applicant, is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.