JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has been sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. and also a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo R.I. for a period of six months. 2. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the orders of the two courts below are liable to be set aside inasmuch as the milk which was kept by the applicant was for the purposes of using it in the tea which was being prepared at the shop of the applicant. It is now well settled that even if the milk is being kept for being used in preparation of tea it has to correspond to the standard under the Act. The aforesaid contention has thus no force. 3. It has been next urged that unless it was shown that the milk was unfit for the use it could not be said that it was adulterated. In Bankey v. The State, 1979 (I) FAC 319, it has been clearly held that an article of food which does not correspond to the standard prescribed would be treated to by an adulterated one. The submission made, therefore, has no substance. 4. In the end, the learned counsel has urged that the applicant is a petty shop-keeper and has already been in jail for a period of one month and that the milk was kept for the purposes of preparation of tea and not to be sold as milk. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case in which the sentence and fine awarded to lie applicant should be reduced to a period of three months and Rs. 500/- as fine. 5. In the result the revision is partly allowed. The applicant is found guilty under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but the sentence is reduced to a period of three months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In case of default of payment of fine, the applicant shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of one month.