JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application in revision filed by one Pooranmal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu dated March 28, 1975, by which the petitioner's appeal was dismissed and his conviction and sentence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter deferred to as 'the Act'), and rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules ('the Rules' hereinafter) were maintained. 2. The petitioner was tried and found guilty of the aforesaid offences by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu who, upon the petitioner's conviction awarded to him one sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- on both the counts and in default, further imprisonment of 3 months. 3. The prosecution case against the petitioner was that on July 8, 1972, he was having milk at his shop for sale. Shri Mangilal, Food Inspector, visited his shop and purchased sample of milk for 60 p. from him vide receipt Ex. P. 1. The sample was divided into three equal parts by the Food Inspector in the presence of Motbirs and each part was filled in a dry clean bottle after adding 16 drops of formalin thereto. The bottles were properly corked and sealed by the Food Inspector in the presence of the petitioner and Motbirs. Out of these three bottles, one was given to the petitioner and the other was sent to Public Analyst for analysis and the third one was produced in the Court. The Public Analyst analysed the sample and gave his report that it was found adulterated, as fat contents therein were 4.0% and solids non-fat contents were 8.4% and as it contained about 70% of added water and abstraction of about 20% original fat. The Food Inspector, after obtaining the requisite sanction to prosecute the petitioner from the competent authority, filed a complaint in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Churu on September 14, 1973, from whose court it was, later-on, transferred to the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu and from there to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner has now come up to this Court in revision to challenge his conviction and sentence. 4. I have perused the record and heard Mr. P. N. Mohnani learnt counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M D. Purohit, Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. The petitioner has now come up to this Court in revision to challenge his conviction and sentence. 4. I have perused the record and heard Mr. P. N. Mohnani learnt counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M D. Purohit, Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. It has been contended before me on behalf of the petitioner that the sample taken by the Food Inspector from the shop of the petitioner was of cow-milk and it should have been analysed as such by the Public Analyst. According to Mr. P.N. Mohnani, learned counsel for the petitioner, the sample taken from the petitioner almost conformed to the standard of purity prescribed for cow's milk and the petitioner was wrongly convicted and sentenced for the offence of having been found in possession of adulterated milk for sale. Mr. P.N Mohnani further urged that the charge that was framed against the petitioner did not state whether the sample taken was of buffalo's milk or of cow's milk and in the absence of such an essential ingredient in the charge, the trial has been vitiated. In support of his above contention Mr. P.N. Mohnani relied upon In re Krishna Iyer, A.I.R. 1939 Mad. 384 , and Ahmed Hussain and another v. The Corporation of Calcutta, 1978 (II) FAC 129 Mr. M.D. Purohit, on the other hand, invited my attention to note (i) appended to A. 11.01.11 of the Appendix B of the Rules and contended on its strength that the petitioner should have given indication of the class of milk which he offered for sale and sold away to the Food Inspector, and as no such indication about the class of the milk was given by him at the time of sale of the milk to the Food Inspector, the standard prescribed for buffalo's milk was rightly applied to the sample by the Public Analyst. Mr. M.D. Purohit further argued that even if the sample, in respect of which the offence was said to have been committed as dealt with, as if it was of cow's milk the quality of solids nonfat analysed was below the minimum standard, prescribed for cow's milk. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. Mr. M.D. Purohit further argued that even if the sample, in respect of which the offence was said to have been committed as dealt with, as if it was of cow's milk the quality of solids nonfat analysed was below the minimum standard, prescribed for cow's milk. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. In my opinion, it was not the duty of Food Inspector to ask from the petitioner at the time of taking the sampie whether the milk which he had kept for sale was of cow or of buffalo. 7. Rule 42(C) of the Rules clearly lays down that the caps of the milk-bottles shall clearly indicate the nature of the milk contained in them. The indication may be either in full or by abbreviation showing buffalo milk by the letter 'B', cow milk by the letter `C' and Goat milk by the letter 'G'. It is no doubt true that the aforesaid rule relates to the nature of milk on the caps of the milk bottles but if the fluid milk is contained in other container such as milk-pot or drum, such container should clearly indicate either in full or by abbreviation the nature of the milk contained in it. This appears to be the intention of the legislature while enacting the Rule 42(C) of the Rules and providing a note (i) to A. 11.01.11 of Appendix B of the Rules. From a bare reading of this note, it appears that when milk is offered for sale, the vendor should give an indication of its class, because, it no such indication is given, the standard prescribed for buffalo milk shall be applicable thereto. 8. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said in this case that the charge that was framed against the petitioner was defective as it did not state whether the sample was of buffalo milk or of cow-milk. 9. Mr. P.N. Mohnani, learned counsel for the petitioner, further urged that even if the petitioner's guilt is taken to be established by the prosecution, he should be treated leniently in the matter of sentence because he has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for about two months and because he was a petty milk seller and has left his business soon after the sample was taken from him. 10. 10. It is no doubt true that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the sample of milk, taken from the petitioner, by the Food Inspector, was found to be adulterated upon analysis by the Public Analyst. It is further proved by the prosecution that the petitioner willingly sold away the milk to the Food Inspector for value and could not produce any licence for selling milk and did not disclose at that time that the milk was of cow. Consequently, no interference is called for with the findings of both the courts below as to the guilt of the petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act and rule 50 of the Rules. As regards sentence, I am of the view that the petitioner is not a previous-convict for similar offence and it is evident from the record that he has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for about two months. Apart from this he was a petty milk seller doing other business i.e. repairing of tyres. In these circumstances, the ends of justice would be met if, while maintaining his conviction on both the counts, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to a term already undergone by him and the fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed on him is reduced to a fine of Rs. 750/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 11. I, therefore, partly accept this revision application and, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act and Rule 50 of the Rules, reduce the substantive sentence of imprisonment to a term already undergone by him. I further reduce the fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed on him to a fine of Rs. 750/-, in default of payment of fine the petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months instead of three months. 12. The petitioner is on bail, he need not surrender to his bail bonds, which are hereby cancelled. Two months time is given to the petitioner to deposit the amount of fine in the trial court, failing which necessary action shall be taken against him in accordance with law.Revision application partly accepted. *******