JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Ram Autar has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 13-3-75 passed by the IVth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bareilly, maintaining his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and six months R.I and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- awarded thereunder. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to six months further R.I. 2. In brief the facts are that on 24-7-72 at about 1-00 p.m Jagdish Singh Food Inspector found the revisionist in possession of she-buffalo milk which he was selling as a hawker near the sugar factory situated on Badaun Road of Bareilly City. The Food Inspector apprised him with his identity in the presence of another Food Inspector R.K. Garg and purchased a sample of 660 ml. of milk from the revisionist and paid its price. Its receipt was written on which thumb-mark of the revisionist was taken. The sample was divided into three parts one of which was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. It was found deficient by 20 per cent in fat contents and by 33 per cent in non-fatty solids. After obtaining the requisite sanction of the Municipal Medical Officer of Health, the revisionist was sent up for trial for selling adulterated milk. 3. The revisionist pleaded not guilty to the said charge and denied that any sample was purchased from him. He attributed his implication on account of enmity with one Jagdish Singh. The trial court found the charge satisfactorily made out and convicted and sentenced the revisionist as aforesaid. The appeal filed against it was dismissed. 4. In this revision the learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that the identity of the person from whom the sample was purchased could not be established. It could be done if the receipt was sent to the finger-print expert for comparison with the specimen thumb-mark of the revisionist. I find no force in this contention because the aforesaid two Food Inspectors had appeared to prove that the sample of milk was taken from none else but the revisionist and his thumb-mark was taken on the receipt. The revisionist bears no enmity with these Food Inspectors and there is no reason to disbelieve them. I find no force in this contention because the aforesaid two Food Inspectors had appeared to prove that the sample of milk was taken from none else but the revisionist and his thumb-mark was taken on the receipt. The revisionist bears no enmity with these Food Inspectors and there is no reason to disbelieve them. In these circumstances, it was not at all necessary to send the disputed thumb-mark for comparison with the specimen thumb-mark of the revisionist. The prosecution satisfactorily established that the sample of milk was purchased from the revisionist who was exposing it for sale and the same was found to be adulterated. His conviction under Section 7/16 of the said Act was rightly recorded. 5. So far as the sentence is concerned, the revisionist case comes under the proviso provided in Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He is not a previous offender and was a petty hawker at the time the sample of the milk was taken from his possession. He was about 22 years of age. He might have brought milk from some one else who might have supplied adulterated milk. However, aforesaid circumstances are sufficient to reduce the sentence to the minimum. 6. The revisionists conviction under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is confirmed but. the sentence awarded thereunder is set aside and in its place he is sentenced to undergo 3 months R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of its payment, to three months further R.I. The revisionist is on bail and will surrender forthwith failing which he will be taken into custody to serve out the sentence awarded by this Court. Subject to the above modification the revision application is dismissed.