JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued on the merits of the case and rightly so, as it appears from a consideration of the orders passed by the two courts below that the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 16/1 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is fully justified on the basis of the evidence on the record. 3. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1975 and that the petitioner is a petty Agriculturist who has now stopped the business of selling milk but is engaged only in agricultural operations. Moreover, it is urged that the petitioner has a large family to support consisting of his wife and six children. Learned counsel also submits that the fine may be enhanced if the court considers proper but the substantive sentence should be reduced, looking to the aforesaid circumstances. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Although there is no doubt that milk, a sample of which was taken from the petitioner, was found to be adulterated, but the reports of the Public Analyst and the Director, Central Food Laboratory appear to be divergent so far as the solid fat and non-fat contents are concerned. There is also no doubt that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1975 and as the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has ceased to continue the business of selling milk, it will be proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case to take a lenient view. 5. I, therefore, partly allow the revision petition and while the conviction of the petitioner under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is maintained, the sentence awarded to the Petitioner is altered from six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- to fifteen days rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine the petitioner shall undergo three months' simple imprisonment. The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated June 25, 1981 is modified to the extent mentioned above. Sd/- Dwarka Prasad, J.Conviction Maintained, Sentence Modified. 1000/- to fifteen days rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine the petitioner shall undergo three months' simple imprisonment. The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated June 25, 1981 is modified to the extent mentioned above. Sd/- Dwarka Prasad, J.Conviction Maintained, Sentence Modified. *******