JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 22nd of December, 1980, passed by the Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, affirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant for the offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The facts of the case, very briefly stated, are as follows : On 7th of November, 1980, Sri Ram Basant Tewari, Chief Food Inspector collected sample of ghee from the shop of the applicant situate in Gbiyahi Gali, Bindki. The formalities prescribed by law were duly complied with. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who reported it to be adulterated. A complaint was, thereafter, filed for the prosecution of the applicant. The applicant denied the case in toto. the trial court, on a consideration of the evidence on record held that the charge under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was made out against the applicant and, in the result, sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved against it, the applicant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge vide his order dated 22nd of December, 1980 and hence this revision. 3-4. Learned counsel for the applicant in the first instance urged that the report submitted by the Public analyst in this case was very ambiguous and that no finding could be recorded on the basis of that report that the ghee was adulterated. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the concluding part of the report of the Public Analyst which incorporates his opinion. It is in the following words: "Namooney men vanaspati basa athwa Tel laghu Matra men mile hain jo shudhya ghee se vijatey hain". 5. Learned counsel pointed out that, since the Public Analyst used the word 'Athwa' it follows that the Public Analyst was not sure whether the adulterating element was Vanaspati Basa or Tel and, consequently, the report was ambiguous. I have given my careful thought to this contention, but I regret my inability to accept the same. 6. 5. Learned counsel pointed out that, since the Public Analyst used the word 'Athwa' it follows that the Public Analyst was not sure whether the adulterating element was Vanaspati Basa or Tel and, consequently, the report was ambiguous. I have given my careful thought to this contention, but I regret my inability to accept the same. 6. Besides the aforesaid opinion, the Public Analyst has also mentioned in his report the result of the analysis and this Court can refer to i that result in order to examine whether the components of the sample were in conformity with the prescribed standard or not According to Item A. 11.02.21, Butyrorefractometer reading of ghee in U.P. should be between 40.0 to 43.0. This reading was found by the Public Analyst to be 42.7 and was, therefore, within prescribed limit. The minimum Reichert value prescribed is 28. This was, however, 27.1 and in this manner the sample was I deficient. Again the maximum limit of free fatty acid as oleic acid as prescribed should not be more than 3.0. This was 1.8% and therefore within the prescribed limit. The percentage of moisture should not exceed 0.3. This was 0.2 and therefore within the prescribed limit. Baudouin test, according to the prescribed standard, should be negative, but this was found to be positive. From the above, it would appear that the sample was adulterated inasmuch as the reichert value being 27.1.21s below the prescribed standard of 28 and Baudouin test was found to be positive instead of negative. 7. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that it was not proved in this case that the sample was adulterated is, consequently, rejected. 8. Learned counsel then urged that in any case a lenient view may be taken on the question of sentence. In this connection learned counsel invited my attention to the fact that the adulteration found in the sample was almost negligible. There appears substance in this submission. The Public Analyst himself, while recording his opinion at the end of the certificate, has said that the mixture was in small measure. The words used by him are 'Laghu Matra' which would mean small proportion. The appeal filed by the applicant in the court of sessions was rejected on 22nd of December, 1980 and he was granted bail by this court on 27th of February, 1981. The words used by him are 'Laghu Matra' which would mean small proportion. The appeal filed by the applicant in the court of sessions was rejected on 22nd of December, 1980 and he was granted bail by this court on 27th of February, 1981. The applicant has thus already undergone imprisonment for slightly more than three months. I think it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant is reduced to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone maintaining the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 9. This revision is, accordingly, allowed to this extent only that while the conviction and sentence against the applicant under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is maintained, the sentence of six months' R.I. awarded to him is reduced to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- awarded to the applicant is, however, maintained. Learned counsel for the applicant informs that he has already deposited Rs. 500/- towards fine. He is granted two months time to deposit the balance amount.