ORDER M.P. Saxena, J. - Bhagwan Das has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 10-.-1978 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, dismissing his appeal and confirming his conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine three months' R I. was awarded when the lower Court had awarded six months' R.I. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 12-5-1975 at about 8 A.M. Sri A.B. Misra, Food Inspector took sample of mixed milk of cow and goat which the revisionist was carrying for sale. It was kept in three phials in the manner prescribed and one of the phials was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The latter reported that it contained 5.2% fat and 7.1% non-fatty solids. According to him, the sample was deficient in non-fatty solids by about 9%, The sample was examined on the basis of the statutory standard prescribed for mixed milk of cow and goat in equal proportions. After obtaining the requisite sanction of the Medical Officer of Health the revisionist was prosecuted under the aforesaid counts. 3. The revisionist denied the said charge by setting up that he was carrying only goat's milk. The prosecution had examined the Food Inspector and Safai Naik. Both of them clearly gave out that sample of mixed milk of goat and cow was collected from the possession of the revisionist. 4. In the documents signed by the revisionist the sample is described as mixed milk of cow and goat and it is not open to the revisionist to contend that it was only goat's milk. 5. The report of the Public Analyst makes it abundantly clear that the sample was deficient only in non-fatty solids by about 9%. Therefore, the charge under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was satisfactorily established. There has been a prayer for reduction of the sentence. There is no manner of doubt that for adequate and special reasons the sentence can be reduced. The revisionist gave himself out to be old and weak. The learned lower court did not find favour with it. However, it is evident from the material on the record that the revisionist is not a previous convict. There is no manner of doubt that for adequate and special reasons the sentence can be reduced. The revisionist gave himself out to be old and weak. The learned lower court did not find favour with it. However, it is evident from the material on the record that the revisionist is not a previous convict. The sample conformed to the prescribed standard so far as fat contents are concerned. It was deficient only in respect of non-fatty solids by about 9% which can be said to be marginal. The revisionist has already remained in jail for about a month and I think the ends of justice will be amply met if his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 6. The revision application is dismissed subject to the modification that the revisionist's conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is confirmed but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and to a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of its payment to three months' S.I. The fine shall be deposited within two months from the date of receipt of the record by the trial court failing which the revisionist shall surrender himself in Court or be taken into custody to serve out his sentence.