JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This appeal has been filed by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad challenging the correctness of the judgment and order dated 26th July, 1977 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate. Allahabad acquitting the respondent No. 1 of the offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, very briefly stated, are as follows :- On 30.11.1974 at about 11.30 A.M. Sri Madan Gopal Misra, Food Inspector found the respondent No. 1 carrying a can of milk. The Food Inspector collected sample out of that milk on payment of its price. Due formalities in connection with the collection of milk were complied with. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported it to be adulterated. Complaint was then filed for the prosecution of respondent No. 1. The respondent during his cross-examination in the trial court pleaded that sample was collected out of his possession forcibly and that no price was paid to him. He also denied that the sample of milk was found by the Public Analyst to be adulterated. The trial court acquitted 'the respondent of the following reasons :- (i) it was not proved that the respondent had been paid the price of the sample and, consequently, it was not the sale within the meaning of section 2(xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. (ii) Aggregate of fatty and non-fatty contents was not such which may lead to the conclusion that the milk was adulterated. It is against that judgment that the present appeal is directed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None, however, appear before me on behalf of the respondent and, consequently, I did not have the advantage of hearing arguments on this behalf. 4. So far as the second reason given by the the trial court for acquitting the respondent is concerned, it is fallacious. The prescribed standard for buffalos milk as given in the item No, A-i i .01-11. According to it the milk should contain minimum milk fat 6.5 per cent the fat contents were more than minimum required by law. Non-fatty solid was, however, 7.3 percent and consequently, there was deficiency of 19 per cent. The prescribed standard for buffalos milk as given in the item No, A-i i .01-11. According to it the milk should contain minimum milk fat 6.5 per cent the fat contents were more than minimum required by law. Non-fatty solid was, however, 7.3 percent and consequently, there was deficiency of 19 per cent. Once it was found that the ingredients in milk were not up to the prescribed standard there was no escape from the conclusion that the sample was adulterated. Reference in this connection can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Hazara Singh, 1975 (I) FAC. 271. In this case the milk vendor was prosecuted on a minimum short fall in the percentage of milk sold not fat. The plea of the accused was that there was marginal error and hence the conviction was not: warranted. The Supreme Court repelled that contention. It quoted with approval the following from the previous decided cases :- "The standard fixed under the Act is one that is certain. If it is varied to any extent, the certainty of a general standard would be replaced by the vagaries of a fluctuating standard. The disadvantages of the resulting unpredictability, uncertainty and impossibility of arriving at fair and consistent decisions are great." 5. This takes me to the second ground adopted by the court below for acquitting the respondent. It has been remarked by the trial court that it was not proved by the evidence on record that the respondent had sold the milk to the Food Inspector. Reference in this connection was made by the court below to the fact that the receipt was not placed on record and further that the respondent No. 1, during his examination in the trial court,: denied having received any price. 6. I have given my careful thought to the evidence on record but I regret my inability to accept the reasoning given by the trial court in that connection. 7. It is well settled that sale to the Food Inspector is also well within the meaning of section 2(xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Food Inspector Sri Madan Gopal Misra examined himself as P.W.l in the case. He stated in very clear words that he collected 660 millilitres milk as sample and paid Rs. 7. It is well settled that sale to the Food Inspector is also well within the meaning of section 2(xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Food Inspector Sri Madan Gopal Misra examined himself as P.W.l in the case. He stated in very clear words that he collected 660 millilitres milk as sample and paid Rs. 1.20 paise in connection with the same to the respondent. Sri Madan Gopal Misra was cross-examined at some length but it is significant to find that at no stage of the cross-examination it was suggested to Sri Madan Gopal Misra that he did not pay any price of the sample to the respondent. It is true that the prosecution did not place on record any copy of the receipt granted to the respondent. The prosecution, however, placed on record extract from the sample register Ex. Ka.2. In the remarks column thereof it is written that the respondent received Rs. 1.20 as the price of 660 millilitres of the sample and this bears the signatures of the respondent. That document was evidence of the fact that the price had been paid. 8. I am aware of the fact that the document Ex. Ka. 2 was not specifically put to the respondent during his examination in the trial court. The respondent cannot, however, derive any benefit out of it in view of the fact that there also exists the statement on oath of the Food Inspector to the same effect and that statement was not at all challenged in cross-examination. The omission to put the extract of the sample register Ex. Ka.2 to the respondent in his examination would thereof not be of much consequence in the particular circumstances of this case, 9. Therefore, disagreeing with the court below I conclude that it was proved on the statement of Sri Madan Gopal Misra that he had paid the price of the sample to the respondent. It, therefore, follows that transaction was a sale within the meaning of section 2(xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The respondent No. 1 is clearly guilty of section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 10. The question that next falls for consideration is that what shall be the appropriate sentence which should be awarded to the respondent. The respondent No. 1 is clearly guilty of section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 10. The question that next falls for consideration is that what shall be the appropriate sentence which should be awarded to the respondent. In this connection it is worthy of notice that the sample was collected on 30.11.1974 i.e. more than six years ago. The acquittal in his favour was recorded on 16.7.1977. According to Section 16 as it then existed it was open to a court, for any adequate and special reasons, to be mentioned in the judgment, to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six moths or a fine of less than Rs. 1000/-or both of imprisonment of less than six months and fine of less than Rs. 1000/-. 11. For the reasons aforesaid it will be appropriate in this case to take a lenient view and award/lesser sentence. In my opinion it would meet the ends of justice if the opposite party is sentenced to one months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 26th July, 1977 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad acquitting the respondent No. 1 of the offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are set aside. Instead he is held guilty and convicted of the same and is sentenced to one months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo one months further rigorous imprisonment. The trial court shall be apprised of this order forthwith for the compliance thereof.