JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R. I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. Hence this revision. 2. 1 have heard Shri K. Kapoor learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. 3. According to the prosecution case the applicant was taking two Cans of milk on 28-12-1977 when the sample of the same was taken by the Food Inspector at about 8 P.M. in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials which was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst disclosed that the milk was deficient in fat contents by 43 percent and in non-fatty solids by 39 percent. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted, as above. 4. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case have held the guilt of the accused fully established. They have also taken into consideration the defence set up by the applicant and have found it to be false. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded concurrently by the courts below. The deficiency in the contents of milk was to the extent of 43%in fat contents and 39% in non-fatty solids. This was a very heavy adulteration and no leniency can be shown to such a delinquent on the question of sentence. In my opinion, the applicant has been rightly convicted and sentenced. 5. There is no merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail, he shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment.