JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. M.M. Singhi, Advocate for the petitioner states that he is not challenging the conviction of the petitioner and submits that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence passed against the petitioner is excessive. The offence is merely a technical one in the sense that the solid non fat contents were found to be deficient, while the fat contents were 4.5% i.e. higher than the prescribed. The petitioner is a poor person working as a Peon in the Udaipur University and has to support eight members of his family. 2. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor the case is finally heard and disposed of. 3. The offence was committed on 22.9.74 i.e. prior to the amendment made under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act prescribing the minimum sentence of three months and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Prior to the present amendment the provision was that the court may for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than Rs. 1000/- or of both imprisonment for term of less than six months and a fine of Jess than Rs. 1000/-. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a poor person and has to support eight members of his family. The fat contents were much higher than the prescribed one. It is only in the solid non-fat contents there was some deficiency. He has submitted that the fact that the milk was found having more fat content may be taken as a circumstance favourable to the petitioner in the matter of sentence. For this he has relied on the case State v. Badri, A.I.R. 1965 Raj. 152 , wherein it was observed that the fact that the milk had better fat contents can, however, be considered while awarding sentence to the offender. He has further relied on Om Prakash v. The State of Rajasthan, 1978 (I) P.A.C. 133 . In that case the petitioner remained in jail only tor 10 days. His sentence was reduced to the period of 10 days already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1000/- was maintained. 5. He has further relied on Om Prakash v. The State of Rajasthan, 1978 (I) P.A.C. 133 . In that case the petitioner remained in jail only tor 10 days. His sentence was reduced to the period of 10 days already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1000/- was maintained. 5. It is not disputed in the present case also that this is the first offence. It is also not disputed that the fat contents were higher than the prescribed cubed limit and the petitioner is a poor person. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case I think it proper to reduce the sentence of the petitioner from rigorous imprisonment for three months to rigorous imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of the payment of tine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The revision is thus partly allowed.Revision partly allowed. *******