JUDGMENT - N.B. NAIK, J.:---This is an appeal by the State for enhancement of the sentence and in the alternative the State has also filed a revision application for sending the case for retrial. 2. It appears that the Food Inspector took milk from the accused for analysis, on 6th October, 1973. The sample being sent to the Public Analyst, the Public Analyst found that the milk contained 44.4% added water. On these facts the accused was prosecuted. 3. After the Food Inspector was examined, a charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge and the learned Magistrate having accepted that plea awarded a lenient sentence by observing that the accused is a young man and poor labourer and this being his first offence for the reasons stated by the accused in his application Ex. 10, he could not be sent to suffer imprisonment. That is why the learned Magistrate after having convicted the accused sentenced him to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. 4. The State being aggrieved has filed this appeal for enhancement. 5. It is true that the charge is framed under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 2(i)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. But I really fail to see how the addition of water by 44.4% could be said to be an offence under section 2(i)(c). It is clearly a case of adulteration under section 2(i)(I) and, therefore, the proviso to section 16 is attracted. If that is so the learned Magistrate had every discretion to award a sentence less than the minimum. It could not be said that the learned Magistrate has not exercised his discretion properly. I, therefore, see no substance in this appeal for enhancement nor in the revision application wherein a prayer is made for sending back the case for retrial. 6. In the result, both the appeal and the revision application are dismissed. Rule in revision application is discharged. -----