JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant was prosecuted for contravening the provisions of Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. According to the prosecution on 30th January, 1976 the Food Inspector found the applicant selling buffalo milk. Sample of the milk was taken and was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis who found the milk to be deficient by 8 per cent in fat contents and by 12 per cent in non-fatty solids. After obtaining the consent of the Chief Medical Officer, the Food Inspector filed the complaint. 3. Before the Magistrate the prosecution produced the Food Inspector, Dr. K.C. Sharma, Mohammad Hussain in order to prove the prosecution case. The trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case and found the accused-applicant guilty and convicted him under section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him to six months R.I. and Rs. 1000/- as fine. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed. 4. I have carefully gone through the two judgments and I find that the findings of conviction recorded by the two courts below are perfectly correct. The learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to show as to how the findings recorded by the two courts below suffer from any illegality. The learned counsel for the applicant has, however, urged that the sample in this case was taken on 30th January 1976 and then no minimum punishment was prescribed under section 16 of the Act. The learned counsel for the State has conceded that if there are special reasons, the sentence of the applicant can be reduced. It has been urged that the applicant is a poor milkman and that the sample was taken about 4 and half years back and that the applicant has already remained in jail for a period of about two and half months. It has been straneously urged that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone. Looking to the facts and the circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant be reduced to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- is, however, maintained. With this modification in sentence the present revision is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail-bonds are discharged. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- is, however, maintained. With this modification in sentence the present revision is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail-bonds are discharged. The applicant is granted two months time for depositing the fine from the date of the receipt of the record in the trial court.