ORDER P.N. Bakshi, J. - Momeen applicant, was convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1000/- by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Saharanpur. He preferred an appeal which was dismissed, hence this revision. 2. The prosecution case was that on 31-12-1974 the Food Inspector took a sample of the milk which the applicant was carrying for sale and sent it for analysis and on analysis it was found to contain 7.4% fat, which was admittedly much above the prescribed standard, but the non-fatty solid content was only 7.5% as against the prescribed standard of 8.5%. 3. The applicant pleaded not guilty, Both the courts below believed prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant contended before me that the milk could not be said to be adulterated because adding together the fat content and the non-fatty solid contents of the sample in question it would come to 14.9% which was much above the aggregate of the prescribed fat and non-fatty solid contents which comes to 13% only. This argument has no force. It is clear from Section 2 of the Act that if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard, it shall be deemed to be adulterated. That being so, if a sample is found to be deficient either in the fat content or in the non-fatty solids content then it must be deemed to be adulterated. The mere fact that the aggregate of the two exceeds the aggregate of the standards prescribed for fat content and non-fatty solid content will not matter. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant then contended that the sample in question was taken on 31-12-74, that is, prior to the amendment of the Act in 1976 and under the law as it then stood it was open to the court, for reasons to be recorded, not to impose the minimum sentence. The learned counsel argued that the fat content was far in excess of the prescribed standard and that the deficiency in non-fatty solid content was also about 1% only, and it is not a fit case for sending the applicant to jail. I am inclined to agree with this contention. 6. The learned counsel argued that the fat content was far in excess of the prescribed standard and that the deficiency in non-fatty solid content was also about 1% only, and it is not a fit case for sending the applicant to jail. I am inclined to agree with this contention. 6. Accordingly, the revision application is dismissed and the conviction of the applicant is affirmed but the sentence is reduced from six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs 1000/- to a fine of Rs. 1000/- only. If the applicant fails to pay the fine he shall undergo two months' R.I. as ordered by the courts below. The applicant is allowed one month's time from the date of receipt of the record in the trial court to pay the fine. If he fails to pay the fine within the time allowed or such further time as the trial court may allow, he shall serve out the sentence. 7. A copy of this order will be issued to the learned counsel for the applicant on payment of the prescribed charges within three days.