JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated 19th December 1980 passed by Shri K.S. Rakhara v. Addl. District & Sessions Judge Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 1980, Jalaun at Orai who midified the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate in Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 1980 and sentenced the revisionist to three month's RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 7(v) and Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the aforesaid Act. 2. This revision arose under the following circumstances: It is alleged that on 18-11-78 at about 10 a. m. the revisionist was found selling the mixture of cow and she buffalo milk near the Railway Station Orai district Jalaun when he was intercepted by Shri B.L. Dohre, Food Inspector, PW 1, who disclosed his identity and purchased the sample of milk after observing all the necessary formalities. The Public Analyst who analysed the sample found it deficient in non-fatty solids by 11% vide his report Ex. Ka-4. Necessary sanction for the prosecution was procured from the Chief Medical Officer and the complaint Ex. (sic) 5 was submitted initiating these proceedings. 3. In his statement the revisionist alleged that he did not sell the milk to the Food Inspector ; he was carrying the milk for his relative Mansha Ram DW I in connection with the receitation of the Katha at his house. The Food Inspector wanted to take a sample of the same and since the Appellant refused, the Food Inspector felt annoyed and he obtained signature of the Appellant on a blank paper and has falsely implicated him. 4. The learned trial Magistrate recorded the conviction and sentenced the revisionist under two counts. Aggrieved by that order the aforesaid appeal was preferred which was partly allowed by the appellate court on the ground that sanction for prosecution was invalid and so the conviction and sentence of the revisionist were set aside. However, the sentence was modified as the revisionist was found to have sold the milk without procuring the licence. 5. Two submissions were made before me on behalf of the revisionist. The first submission was that the testimony of Mansha Ram DW 1, who supported the defence varsion was wrongly discarded. The grounds for rejection of that evidence were not cogent. 5. Two submissions were made before me on behalf of the revisionist. The first submission was that the testimony of Mansha Ram DW 1, who supported the defence varsion was wrongly discarded. The grounds for rejection of that evidence were not cogent. I need not enter into this controversy which is a question of fact in this case and can not be examined by me in revision. 6. The next contention was that prosecution did not file the list of the licences to show that the revisionist did not possess the licence to sell the milk. This contention is not capable of being pushed up. Possession of licence was a fact specially within the knowledge of the revisionist himself and so by virtue of Sections 105 and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act the revisionist himself must have produced the licence if he possessed any. It is too much to expect that the prosecution should have produced the list of the licences to exclude the possibility of the revisionist having a licence to sell the milk. So this onus to bring his case within the exception has not been discharged by the revisionist. 7. There was a prayer for the reduction of sentence on the ground that the revisionist was not found liable for the adulteration of milk and his fine may be maintained but the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by extending benefit of the Section 20-AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. I find it a fit case to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation Act, so far as the sentence of remaining three months is concerned. 8. Thus this revision is partly allowed. The impugned order is modified to the extent that while upholding the conviction of the revisionist u/s 7(v) and Rule 50/ Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the aforesaid Act the sentence is modified as below: The sentence of Rs. 500/- is maintained. The fine has to be deposited by the revisionist within one month of the receipt of the record in the court of trial magistrate ; he shall be released on probation for a period of one year on execution of a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- only to keep good behaviour.