Short Note : 1. A sample of milk was obtained by Food Inspector Shivnarayan Vyas P.W.1 from the applicant on 20-11-75 in requisite quantity on payment of its price and, after adding formlin thereto and dividing the sample equally in three bottles and after completing all other formalities as required by the Act, one bottle of the samples so prepared was sent to the Public Analyst who, on analysis, as per his report Ex. P/4, found that the sample did not conform with the standard prescribed for the she-buffalo-milk inasmuch as the contents of fat were 1.1 per cent and S.N.F.3.862 per cent. Thus, the milk was found to be adulterated. On these facts, the applicant was prosecuted and tried which resulted in the conviction. On appeal being filed by the applicant, the learned lower appellate Court set aside her conviction under section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the said Act and the sentence awarded thereunder but maintained her conviction under section 7 (1) read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, and modified the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months to that of simple imprisonment for six months, while maintaining the sentence of fine of Rs.500 but modifying the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for three months. Held: The only point urged on behalf of the applicant in this revision was that she being an Adivasi woman, a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. It was submitted that she is a poor and illiterate woman, who has to maintain her children, she being a widow. Learned counsel for the applicant did not challenge the findings of the lower Courts that the milk, of which sample was purchased, was meant for sale and that on analysis it was found to be below the prescribed standard and adulterated. The report of the Public Analyst clearly indicates that the milk was very much below the prescribed standard. It is not a case of marginal deficiency of fat and solid-non-fat in the milk which would deserve leniency in the matter of sentence. The report of the Public Analyst clearly indicates that the milk was very much below the prescribed standard. It is not a case of marginal deficiency of fat and solid-non-fat in the milk which would deserve leniency in the matter of sentence. It appears from the report that a large quantity of water was added to a small quantity of milk meant for sale and, in these circumstances in my opinion, simply because the applicant happens to be 'Adivasi' woman, it cannot be said that she deserves further reduction in the sentence on that ground. The learned lower appellate Court has judicially exercised its discretion in awarding the sentence and I do not find any ground to interfere therewith. Revision dismissed.