JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the P.F. Act and sentenced to 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of line, he is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months. Aggrieved thereby he filed the appeal before t he Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, which has been dismissed on 5-6-80. 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 goat milk from the applicant on 4-5-74 at 12.30 P.M. at the Railway Road Farrukhabad in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials which was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst disclosed that it was deficient in non-fatty solids by 32 per cent. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 4. 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 fully established. 1 do not find any error or illegality in the findings of fact recorded by the courts below at all. 5. The defence put up by the accused was that he was merely a carrier of milk for his Master Babu Ram with whom he was employed has been rejected. I do not find any reason to re-appraise the evidence on this score. 6. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, learned counsel has submitted that the incident had taken place in the year 1974 prior to the coming into force of Amendment Act No.76 and therefore, the sentence should be reduced. That may be so, but I find in this case that the adulteration is rather heavy. There is deficiency in non-fatty solids to the extent of 32 per cent. As such it is necessary that the applicant should be given adequate sentence to deter him from such anti-social activities in future. Having regard to all the circumstances a sentence of six months' R.I. is by no means excessive. But as far as the quantum of fine is concerned, that may be reduced from one thousand to Rs. 500/- having regard to the fact that the applicant does not appear to be a previous convict. 7. Having regard to all the circumstances a sentence of six months' R.I. is by no means excessive. But as far as the quantum of fine is concerned, that may be reduced from one thousand to Rs. 500/- having regard to the fact that the applicant does not appear to be a previous convict. 7. Except for this modification in sentence, the conviction of the applicant for which he has been found guilty is maintained and this revision is hereby dismissed.