JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Karam Hussain has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 25-4-1980 passed by the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, dismissing his appeal against this conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- awarded by the trial court were confirmed. In default of payment of fine he was awarded four months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. In brief the prosecution case was that on 13-11-1975 at about 8.30 A.M. near Shivmurti, Railway Road, Police Station Hardwar the revisionist was found selling buffalo milk. Sri Gulshan Ambhwani, Food Inspector, gave him a notice and purchased sufficient quantity of milk for analysis on payment of its price. The same was placed in three sealed phials, one of which was sent to the Public Analyst. The latter reported that the sample was deficient in fat contents to the extent of 30% and non-fatty solids to the extent of 9% and as such it was adulterated. After obtaining the requisite sanction of the Municipal Health Officer, Hardwar, the Food Inspector filed a complaint. 3. The revisionist denied the said charge and gave out that he was carrying only about 4 kilos of cow's milk which was not meant for sale. The Food Inspector obtained his thumb impressions by force and also took sample without paying any price. 4. After going through the evidence on the record the learned trial court believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the revisionist as aforesaid. The appeal filed against it was dismissed. 5. The first point urged before me is that there was no sale of any milk by the revisionist. It is based on the ground that no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove the same. This contention is based on the compliance of section 10(7) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules 9(j) and 18 and 19 framed thereunder. The Food Inspector gave out in his statement that he had tried to take members of the public as witnesses but they were not prepared to do so. He had, therefore, no alternative but to take the sample in the presence of two employees of Nagar Palika. The testimony of the Food Inspector does not suffer from any infirmity nor he was aggrieved with the revisionist. He had, therefore, no alternative but to take the sample in the presence of two employees of Nagar Palika. The testimony of the Food Inspector does not suffer from any infirmity nor he was aggrieved with the revisionist. Therefore, he could have no oblique motive to implicate him in a false case. As held in the case of Jagdeo v. State of U.P. 198) (I) P.F.A. Cases 263, section 10(7) does not lay down that the evidence of Food Inspector cannot be accepted without corroboration. Therefore, in the instant case even the testimony of the Food Inspector could be relied upon for taking the sample if it was otherwise convincing. Therefore, the contention has no force. 6. Another point urged before me is that the revisionist was actually carrying cow's milk and had told the Food Inspector about it. The lower appellate court has discussed this aspect of the matter at length and has rightly held that it was not cow's milk but was milk of she-buffalo. In the papers thumb marked by the revisionist also it is described as buffalo milk. Therefore, it is not open to the revisionist to contend that it was cow's milk. 7. The Public Analyst's report shows that the sample was adulterated whether the standard prescribed for buffalo milk or cow's milk is applied. Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that it was an adulterated milk. 8. The statement of the Food Inspector also goes to show that the milk from which the sample was collected was meant for sale. For all those reasons the revisionist was rightly convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently urged for reduction of the sentence. I have given my consideration to the same and 1 find that there are certain circumstances which lean in his favour. The case is of 1975 i.e. prior to the coming into force of Act 34 of 1976 which prescribes minimum sentence. The revisionist was a young lad of 19 years and there is nothing on the record to prove that he was a previous convict. The sample was collected in 1975 to which a long period of five years has now expired. The revisionist was a young lad of 19 years and there is nothing on the record to prove that he was a previous convict. The sample was collected in 1975 to which a long period of five years has now expired. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances the ends of justice would be amply met if the sentence is reduced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of its payment to three months' further rigorous imprisonment. 10. The revision 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 awarded to him is reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of its payment to three months' rigorous imprisonment. He is on bail and will surrender forthwith to serve out his sentence. If he has already deposited the fine then the excess fine will be refunded to him but if he has not done, he will deposit the fine imposed by this Court within two months hereof.