JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi 1. THE applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai. Hence this revision. 2. THE Food Inspector purchased a sample of Ghee from the shop of the applicant on 31st July, 1973 at 9 a. m. in accordance with the provisions of law. He divided the sample into three parts one of which was sent for analysis. THE report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the Ghee was adulterated. It is also the case for the prosecution that the applicant was selling Ghee without a licence. On these charges, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. I have also scrutinized the record. 3. COUNSEL for the applicant has submitted that the report of the Public Analyst does not disclose the extent of adulteration. It merely indicates that the sample contained some foreign material like vegetable fat or oil. He argues that no vendor would make a very small proportion of fat or oil in Ghee, if he intended to make undue profits out of it. Learned counsel has cited my own unreported decision in Cr. Revision No. 511 of 1974, Navin Chand Gupta v. State of U. P. That case is distinguishable inasmuch as the finding given was that the quantum of adulteration is very negligible. That is not the position here. However, this much can be accepted that the Public Analyst has not reported the extent of adulteration, which may or may not be a small percentage. Thus the finding of adulteration is complete, but it may affect the question of sentence. 4. LEARNED counsel has then argued that the accused was not required to take a licence for the sale of Ghee. Thus the finding of adulteration is complete, but it may affect the question of sentence. 4. LEARNED counsel has then argued that the accused was not required to take a licence for the sale of Ghee. For this purpose he has referred to Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 which runs as follows.- "Conditions of Licence : (1) No person shall manufacture, sell, stock, distribute or exhibit for sale any of the following articles of Food except under a licence ; (a) milk of all classes and designations, (b) milk products such as cream, malai, curd, skimmed milk, curd, chhana, skimmed milk chhana, cheese, processed cheese, ice cream, milk condensed milk sweetened and unsweetened, condensed skimmed milk, sweetened and unsweetened milk powder, skimmed milk powder, partly skimmed milk powder, khoa, infant milk food table butter, deshi butter,........................... Learned counsel has argued that this rule is exhaustive. It does not make any mention of Ghee. I find myself unable to accept this submission. Under Rule 50-B the expression used is "Milk products". Some examples of Milk products have been given therein. This does not negative the existence of other Milk products. The expression is illustrative and not exhaustive. Ghee is also a milk produce. In Appendix (B) SI. No. A. 11:02:21 : "Ghee means the pure clarified fat derived solely from milk or from curd or from deshi (cooking) butter or from cream to which no colouring matter or preservative has been added...................." 5. THE definition to my mind clearly brings Ghee within the purview of Milk product as mentioned in Rule 50 (i) and (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. In my opinion, therefore, it is incumbent upon a person to have a licence, if he manufactures, sells, stocks, distributes or exhibits Ghee for sale. Therefore, the applicant is also guilty of an infringement of this Rule. 6. THE last question to be considered is that of sentence. THE incident in question had taken place more than 6 years ago. As already mentioned above, the extent of adulteration is not known. THE use of the word ''some" gives an idea that the adulteration was not much, may be a small proportion. THE applicant has been in jail for some time. A fine of Rs. 1000/- has also been imposed upon him. As already mentioned above, the extent of adulteration is not known. THE use of the word ''some" gives an idea that the adulteration was not much, may be a small proportion. THE applicant has been in jail for some time. A fine of Rs. 1000/- has also been imposed upon him. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the applicant is a previous convict. In these circumstances, it would serve the cause of justice to maintain his conviction under Sees. 7\16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed thereunder to the period already undergone. THE sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- is however, maintained. With this modification in sentence this revision application is dismissed. Revision dismissed.