Short Note : 1. The facts, stated briefly, which are now not in dispute, are that a sample of milk was obtained from the applicant on 27-3-71 by P.W.1 Gopal Krishna Pandit, Food Inspector, at the time when the applicant was carrying milk for sale. The Food Inspector took sample of milk in requisite quantity on payment of price and, after dividing the same in three equal parts after adding formalin, in three bottles, sealed them and, thus after completing all the formalities regarding the sample as required by law and the rules thereunder one sample was sent to the Public Analyst who on examination as per his report Ex P/8, found that the fat contents were 6 per cent and solid-non-fat contents were 7.96 per cent, that is, it was found deficient in S.N.F. to the extent of 1.04 per cent that is, added water was 11.5 per cent. Thus is was below the prescribed standard. On these facts the applicant was prosecuted which, on trial, resulted in his conviction under section 7 (1) read with S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Held : It is true that the Panch-witnesses have not supported the prosecution case fully but, in my opinion, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, there appears no reason to disbelieve the food Inspector Gopal Krishna Pandit (P.W.1) whose statement appears to be consistent and reliable. 2. It is true as submitted on behalf of the applicant that by now seven years have elapsed since the applicant was prosecuted and he has suffered sufficient humiliation. However, even though fat contents have been found to be more than the minimum prescribed by law; but, considering the percentage of water added, I am of opinion that in lieu of the remaining Jail sentence to be suffered by the applicant, he should pay an additional fine of Rs. 500. Revision dismissed.