JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - The applicant Lekha has been convicted under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to six months, and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default further R.I. for 3 months. 2. The prosecution case was that on 30-1-1976 at 11-30 A.M. id applicant was found selling adulterated buffalo milk in Mohalla Kali Pagri Amroha. A sample of the said milk taken by the Food Inspector was analysis found by the Public Analyst vide his report dated 10-3-1976 to hat 0.3% fat contents and 9.5% non-fatty solids, thus being deficient in fact contents by about 95% of the prescribed standard for buffalo milk. The applicants case was of denial. He contended that no sample had been tab from him and he had been falsely implicated because he did not offer illegal gratification to the Food Inspector. Both the courts below have believed is prosecution case and convicted the applicant. 3. On behalf of the applicant it was contended that there had been a breach of Rule 9(j) in the present case and a copy of the Public Analysts report had not been sent to the applicant within ten days of the receipt of the said report. The evidence of the Food Inspector was that a copy of the Public Analyst report had been sent to the applicant by the office of which registration receipt Ex. Ka-9 is on record. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, relied on the statement of the Food Inspector where he stated that he could not give the exact date on which this copy was sent (the date stamp on the receipt is indistinct). He also relied upon the admission that there were four cases pending against the applicant and the receipt did not show the case number or the sample number. It was urged that the failure of the Food Inspector to give the exact date of the receipt to show the sample number means that there was a breach of Rule 9(j). I cannot agree. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it has to be presumed that the official acts once shown to have been done were regularly performed. It is, therefore, safe to hold that the registered cover of which Ex. Ka. 9 is the receipt contained the Public Analysts report relating to the sample in issue in this case. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it has to be presumed that the official acts once shown to have been done were regularly performed. It is, therefore, safe to hold that the registered cover of which Ex. Ka. 9 is the receipt contained the Public Analysts report relating to the sample in issue in this case. The mere fact that four other cases are pending against the applicant cannot warrant a suspicion that the receipt Ex. Ka-9 relates to the sending of the Public Analyst report regarding some other sample. The argument must, therefore, be rejected. 4. It was then contended that in sending the sample to the Public Analyst there was a breach of Rule 17 but the Food Inspector in his evidence proved that while he sent the sample to the Public Analyst per memorandum Ex. Ka-4, he sent a copy of the memorandum by registered post separately but that the receipt for this memorandum had been filed in the other case. The matter was not pursued in cross-examination. It is admitted that on the same day another sample had been taken and the prosecution for that sample was dropped on the courts finding that the present prosecution was in progress. In this situation the one sided testimony of the Food Inspector cannot justify the inference that his allegation about separate sending of the memorandum and the specimen seal was false and that a breach of the rule had been committed. In this connection it may be mentioned that Ex. Ka-4 itself mentions that a copy of the memorandum and the specimen of seal were being sent separately by registered post and the report of the Public Analyst also mentions that the seal on the sample tallied with the specimen of seal separately sent by the Food Inspector. Thus, Rule 17 also was clearly complied with. 5. The fact that the applicant was challenged four times can also be of no avail in the absence of any specific evidence of animus on the part of the Food Inspector which might have led him to concoction of the present case. 6. Lastly, learned counsel urged that the applicant may be treated leniently. 5. The fact that the applicant was challenged four times can also be of no avail in the absence of any specific evidence of animus on the part of the Food Inspector which might have led him to concoction of the present case. 6. Lastly, learned counsel urged that the applicant may be treated leniently. The case relates to the period before Act 34 of 1976 when Section 16 permitted for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment imposing a sentence of less than 6 moths R.I. or less than Rs. 1000/- as fine. In my opinion, even considering the extent of the deficiency of 95% in fat contents the facts (1) that the occurrence is five years old, (2) that the applicant is also being prosecuted in other cases, and (3) that he has already served one month and seven days in jail before being bailed out by this Court in revision, make it reasonable that he may not be sent back to jail. I would, therefore, remit the remaining part of the jail sentence. 7. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant is confirmed but his sentence of six months R.I. is reduced to the period already undergone plus a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default 3 months R.I. Two mouths time from the date of receipt of the record in the court below is allowed for payment of fine. The applicant is on bail and need not surrender in case the fine is paid within the time allowed.