JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - The applicant Mahavir has been convicted under section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default further R.I. for one year. 2. There is no dispute that the applicant happened to be the milk contractor for T.B. Hospital, Etawah, in November 1976. Under the contract, Ex. Kha. 1, on record he was to supply pure and fresh buffalo milk at Rs. 1.59 per litre with specific gravity 10.30 and each litre yielding 250 grams of Khowa. It is not disputed that in case of fall in the specific gravity the authorities could make deductions from the bill. On the complaint of the Superintendent, T.B. Hospital, a sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector on 12-11-1976 at 8.30 A.M. On analysis the Public Analyst found per his report dated 22-11-1976 that the milk contained only 5.6% fat and 8.2% non-fatty solids as against the prescribed standard of 6% and 9%. The milk was, therefore, declared adulterated. Both the courts below have found the applicant guilty. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant pressed the following points; It was urged that the prosecution was vitiated because the Food Inspector had violated section 10(7) of the Act and not called independent witnesses at the time of sample taking. The record shows that the two witnesses who were called and have signed the receipt for the price of milk are Jamuna Prasad, Pharmacist of the T.B. Hospital, and Devi Din, Sanitary Supervisor. When the sample was being taken at the time of supply of the milk to the Hospital, the Pharmacist of the Hospital would be a natural witness and in my opinion should be taken to be an independent witness notwithstanding the fact that he is also an employee of the Health Department to which the Food Inspector belongs. In this connection the Food Inspector has deposed that the milk was being delivered to this very Pharmacist. The other witness Devidin was admitted by the Food Inspector to be his own. The Food Inspector specifically stated that there was no public witness available at the spot at that time. In the circumstances I am unable to agree that there has been any breach of section 10(7) of the Act. 4. The other witness Devidin was admitted by the Food Inspector to be his own. The Food Inspector specifically stated that there was no public witness available at the spot at that time. In the circumstances I am unable to agree that there has been any breach of section 10(7) of the Act. 4. It was then urged that it was a case of contract to supply milk for a price regulated according to the specific gravity and no offence was committed because the contract visualised that the applicant not being a producer of milk could not always control its quality. I cannot agree. In the first place Ex. Kha-1 itself speaks of pure and fresh buffalo milk but even if it did not, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act does not make any exceptions in cases where the price is to vary according to specific gravity and Khowa contents. Everyone supplying articles of food is bound to maintain the prescribed standard unless the supply is specifically made to certain other standards. The applicant was, therefore, bound to supply milk satisfying the standard prescribed by the Act, all the more so in case of T.B. Hospital. It also appears that the complaint was made by the Superintendent, T.B. Hospital that the milk being supplied was of very different quality. In the circumstances the applicant was rightly held guilty. Learned counsel then pressed for reduction of sentence. Considering that it is a case of milk supply to a hospital a more serious view than in a case of individual supply has to be taken. The Magistrate awarded one year's R.I. and Rs. 2000/- as fine. The Sessions Judge in his judgment appears to have under some misapprehension redictated that the sentence was only six months' R.I. The operative portion of the order, however, merely dismissed the appeal which would mean that the original sentence of one year's R.I. stood confirmed. Considering all the circumstances would reduce the sentence to six months' R.L and a fine of Rs. 1500/-. 5. In the result the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant is maintained but the sentence of one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/- is reduced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default further R.L for six months. The applicant was granted bail by this Court's order dated 1-8-1980. 1500/-. 5. In the result the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant is maintained but the sentence of one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/- is reduced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default further R.L for six months. The applicant was granted bail by this Court's order dated 1-8-1980. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence. The stay order dated 1-8-1980 is also vacated.