JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. 3. According to the prosecution case, a sample of buffalo milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant at 8 a.m. on 3-5-78 in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst which disclosed that it was deficient in non-fatty solids by 14 per cent. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case have held the guilt of the accused satisfactorily proved. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding of fact recorded by them to warrant interference in revision. 4. Counsel for the applicant has argued that since there is a deficiency of only 14 per cent in non-fatty solids only, therefore it should be treated as a marginal deficiency and the applicant should be acquitted. I am unable to subscribe to the submission. A deficiency of 14 per cent cannot be said to be marginal. Moreover after the amendment by Act No. 34 of 1976, it does not make any difference whether deficiency is in fat contents or in non-fatty solids. Even a deficiency in non-fatty solids would be deemed to be an infringement of the law because the sample of food does not prescribe to the standard laid down under the rules. In my opinion, therefore, the applicant has been rightly convicted. The sentence awarded to him is a minimum permissible in law; no further reduction is possible. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the milk in question did not belong to him but belonged to somebody else. This defence has not been accepted by the courts below. A person who sells adulterated milk commits an offence. 6. There is no merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the milk in question did not belong to him but belonged to somebody else. This defence has not been accepted by the courts below. A person who sells adulterated milk commits an offence. 6. There is no merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment. The interim order passed by this court on 7th September, 1979 is hereby vacated.