JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - The applicant Dhunnoo has been convicted under Section 7/16, Prevention of" Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default further R.I. for two months. 2. The prosecution case was that on 25-5-1977 at about 8.30 A.M. the applicant was carrying for sale about 13 kg. of goat milk and a sample taken by the Food Inspector was found to be adulterated. According to the Public Analyst report dated 7-6-1977 the sample contained 4.7% fat contents but the non-fatty solids were merely 5.4% thereby showing a deficiency of about 40%. The applicants case was that the milk was not for sale but he was taking it for his sick child. This defence was rejected by the trial court on the cogent ground that 13 kg. quantity of milk itself ruled out the defence version. The argument does not appear to have been repeated before the lower appellate court. I see no ground to interfere with the finding of the trial court on this point. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant tried to reiterate the arguments about the invalidity of the sanction Ex. Ka-6 given on the Food Inspectors report Ex. Ka-5. The report contains the following note "Seen. Sanction accorded separately. Sd/-. 11-7-77." The sanction accorded separately is quite in order except for the discrepancy that whereas the date at the top in the printed column for such date is July 12, 1977 the date under the signature of the Chief Medical Officer is 11-7-1977. Considering the evidence of the Food Inspector supported by his report Ex.-Ka-5 and the endorsement on Ex. Ka-5 I agree with the courts below that the sanction is not vitiated by the discrepancy of date. I take 11-/-1977 to be the correct date of sanction and the date 12-7-1977 on the top to be a slip of the official who filled in the date. There was also an attempt to claim that the applicants right under section 13(2) had been prejudiced. The appellate court has fully discussed this point. The intimation Ex. Ka-8 had been duly sent to the applicant under registration receipt dated 22-8-1977. Moreover, there was no attempt to apply for sending the second phial of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Therefore, the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act were complied with. The appellate court has fully discussed this point. The intimation Ex. Ka-8 had been duly sent to the applicant under registration receipt dated 22-8-1977. Moreover, there was no attempt to apply for sending the second phial of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Therefore, the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act were complied with. The applicant has no right to complain of being deprived of his right to secure Central Food Laboratorys analysis. 4. The main point urged was that although there is a shortage of 3.6% in non-fatty solids there is an excess of 1.2% in the fat contents. This cannot save the milk from being adulterated even on the principle canvassed viz. that an excess of fat contents can in marginal cases be taken to offset the deficiency in non-fatty contents on the basis that the analysis may not be wholly accurate. There is, therefore, no case for interference with the conviction. 5. In the matter of sentence only one factor prompts me to interfere and that is the admission of P.W.2 that the applicants son had died on the day the sample was taken. Legally the case is covered by the first proviso to Section 16(l)(a) of the Act. 1 would, therefore, reduce the sentence to the minimum under the proviso. 6. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, is confirmed but his sentence of six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- is reduced to three months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default further R.I. for two months. The applicant is on bail in pursuance of this courts order dated 17-12-1979 and shall be got arrested immediately to serve out his sentence.