JUDGMENT R.B. Lal, J. - This revision has been filed by Nathoo Lal, who has been convicted for an offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 1J years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. The Food Inspector took a sample of turmeric powder (Pisi Haldi) from the shop of the applicant on 20-7-77 at 1.45 p.m. in the market of Bhongaon, Police Station Bhongaon, Distt. Mainpuri. The sample was found adulterated by the Public Analyst. The learned Magistrate found the case proved against the applicant and convicted and sentenced him, as aforesaid, on 24-8-81. An appeal taken to the learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri also filed on 3-9-81. Now the convict has come to this Court in revision. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant had not pressed this revision on merits at the time of admission and had confined the revision to the question of sentence. 4. The learned counsel has submitted that on 20-7-1977at 2-30 PM. the Food Inspector had taken sample of linseed oil from the shop of the I present applicant and that oil was also found adulterated. A separate prosecution was launched against the applicant in respect of that Sample. The Magistrate convicted the applicant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for eight months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/-. The appeal against that conviction and sentence failed. In Criminal Revision No. 789 of 1980 decided on 23-2-1981 this Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The applicant is at present confined in jail. The learned counsel has urged that the sentence of imprisonment and fine in the present case be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and substantive sentence of imprisonment be made concurrent with the sentence of imprisonment awarded in the earlier case. He has urged that the applicant is a young man and the only bread (SIC) applicant died while the applicant was serving (SIC) detention in jail will mean ruin of the family. 5. Taking all the facts into consideration (SIC) lenient view. I reduce the sentence of the applicant (SIC) imprisonment for eight months and fine of Rs. He has urged that the applicant is a young man and the only bread (SIC) applicant died while the applicant was serving (SIC) detention in jail will mean ruin of the family. 5. Taking all the facts into consideration (SIC) lenient view. I reduce the sentence of the applicant (SIC) imprisonment for eight months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- (SIC) payment of fine the applicant shall further undergo rigorous imprison for two months. The reduced substantive sentence (SIC) imprisonment instant case shall run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment posed on the applicant in the case relating to linseed oil. The application said to be in jail and shall serve out the sentence according to law. applicant is allowed four month s' time to pay up the fine.