JUDGMENT P.N. Harkauli, J. -The applicant was prosecuted under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine R.I. for 2 months by the learned Magistrate. 2. On appeal his sentence was reduced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Thereupon he preferred this revision. 3. According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector found the applicant selling milk on 27-11-1971 at about 12-30 P.M. He purchased a sample of milk from the applicant. The milk was sent to Public Analyst who found it adulterated inasmuch as it was deficient in fat contents by 30% and non-fatty solids contents by 43%. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended in the first place that the evidence of the Food Inspector that he had added 16 drops of formalin to each phial containing 750 grams of milk was not correct as the other prosecution witness (P.W. 2) had stated that only 10 or 12 drops of formalin were added. 5. Learned counsel further argued that even if the statement of the Food Inspector is taken on its face value it showed that he had added only 16 drops of formalin to 750 grams of milk and thus he failed to comply with Rule 20 which required that 20 drops of formalin should be added to that quantity of milk. 6. I am not prepared to disbelieve the evidence of the Food Inspector on the basis of the statement of P.W. 2. P.W. 2 stated that the Food Inspector added "10 or 12" drops of formalin to each phial. This vague statement of P.W. 2 itself shows that he does not really know the quantity of formalin added to the samples and he had made a statement on the basis of guess work. Obviously such a vague statement of P.W. 2 based on a guess can be no basis for disregarding the definite sworn statement of the Food Inspector who himself added the formalin and made a note of it at that very time. It is true that under rule 20, 20 drops of formalin was to be added by the Food Inspector whereas he added only 16 drops of formalin. It is true that under rule 20, 20 drops of formalin was to be added by the Food Inspector whereas he added only 16 drops of formalin. But a perusal of the report of the Public Analyst will show that up to the time of analysis no change had taken place in the constituents of the milk which would have interfered with the analysis. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the mere fact that only 16 drops of formalin, instead of 20 drops, was added will not vitiate the conviction. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the report of the Public Analyst showed that his report related to sample No. 23 ), but the Food Inspector's evidence showed that the sample taken from the applicant bore another cumber and so it could not be said that the report of the Public Analyst related to the sample recovered from the applicant. This argument is not sound. A perusal of Ex Ka-l will show that the number of the sample sent by the Food Inspector was 239 which is the number mentioned in the report of the Public Analyst also. This shows clearly that in his evidence the Food Inspector gave a wrong number of the sample by mistake. Such a mistaken statement of the Food Inspector cannot he any basis for holding that the sample which was sent to the Public Analyst was not the sample taken from the applicant. 8. The next contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant's sentence is excessive. I do not think that the sentence of six months R.I. and a tine of Rs. 500/- can be said to be excessive when the milk was so much adulterated. 9. The revision appears to have no force and is dismissed.