JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Moradabad. 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, the Food Inspector purchased a sample of buffalo milk from the applicant at about 10.15 A.M. on 27th April, 76 in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that it was deficient in fat contents by 3 per cent and in non fatty solids by 16 per cent. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 4. Both the courts below on an assessment of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case have found the guilt of the accused conclusively established beyond all reasonable doubt. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by them concurrently. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the sample of milk, which was taken from the accused-applicant should have been thoroughly stirred. As a matter of fact, he argued that the can should have been lifted and shaken out right so that every particle of milk contained therein was shaken and the milk became uniform. No such argument has been advanced before any of the courts below. This is not a pure question of law. It involves a consideration of fact for which evidence had to be led. The argument does not appeal to me. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere on this ground. It may also be mentioned that learned counsel has cited a Division Bench case of Punjab and Haryana High Court, reported in 1974, Food Adulteration Cases 488, Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Ram Datt. I have perused that case. Learned Judges of that court have themselves observed that, the opinion that they have expressed therein, should not be taken as enunciation of law, and that it is applicable to the special circumstances of that particular case, alone. 6. Learned counsel has also argued that the sentence errs on the side of severity. I have perused that case. Learned Judges of that court have themselves observed that, the opinion that they have expressed therein, should not be taken as enunciation of law, and that it is applicable to the special circumstances of that particular case, alone. 6. Learned counsel has also argued that the sentence errs on the side of severity. The offence, in question, had taken place on 27th April, 1977, i.e. after the enforcement of Act No. 34 of 1976. The minimum sentence provided thereafter is six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. in these circumstances, I find myself unable to interfere on the question of sentence. 7. 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.