JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - Revisionist has been convicted under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced by the appellate court to R. I. for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default further R. I. for one month. 2. The prosecution case was that on 28-8-74 at about 7 A. M. the revisionist was found carrying for sale adulterated mixed milk of cow and goat in Jhansi town. A sample taken by the Food Inspector is said to have been found by the Public Analyst to have 3.8% fat but only 4.6% non-fatty solids thereby showing 27% deficiency in the latter from the prescribed standard. The revisionist had denied that the sample was taken from him. But this matter is concluded by the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two courts below. 3. On behalf of the revisionist it was urged that the prosecution having failed to prove the proper compliance of R.I. 9(J) must fail. R.I. 9(J) as it stood at the time of receipt of the public analyst's report dated 20-9-74, by the Food Inspector required sending a copy of this report by registered post within ten days of the receipt. The Food Inspector in this case had deposed that he had a copy to the analyst's report torwarded. to the accused by his office per registered post. There was no cross-examination about this statement. The learned counsel stressed the position that the registration receipt or acknowledgement receipt about the sending of this copy had not been produced in court. This is true but on the unrebutted and even unchallenged statement on oath of the food inspector I think the trial court rightly found that R.I. 9(J) had been complied with. Apart from this in this case the revisionist had appeared in the court on 24-5-75 and never made any move for sending the sample for analysis to Central Food Laboratory. Therefore, he cannot complain of any prejudice in his defence on account of not receiving the copy of the analyst's report. The conviction must, therefore, be confirmed. 4. There remains the question of sentence. According to Section 16 as it stood at the time of the present sample the court had the power for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment to impose a sentence of imprisonment less than six months or of a line less than Rs. The conviction must, therefore, be confirmed. 4. There remains the question of sentence. According to Section 16 as it stood at the time of the present sample the court had the power for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment to impose a sentence of imprisonment less than six months or of a line less than Rs. 1000/- . This is the provision under which the appellate court reduced the sentence of six months' and Rs. 1000/- fine imposed by the trial court. The consideration that seems to be over-riding importance now is that this case relates to a sample taken on 28-8-74 that is more than six years back. The revisionist has already been through the long process of trial, appeal and revision and has even undergone approximately one month's jail in two instalments namely after the trial court's decision and after the appellate court's decision. I think in the circumstances the remaining part of the imprisonment sentence should be remitted. 5. The revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the revisionist under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is confirmed but the three month's imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. The sentence of Rs. 500/- fine shall stand. Two months' time from the date of receipt of recode in the court below is allowed for payment of fine. The revisionist is on bail in pursuance of this Court's order dated 16-5-80 and I need not surrender in case the fine is paid within the time allowed.