JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Mangroo Yadav has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 17-5-1977 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, convicting him under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to three years R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of his payment to six months further R.I. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 30-12-1975 at about 9-40 a.m, Sri N.N. Singh Food Inspector of the Municipal Board Azamgarh, had found the appellant carrying the container of milk on the carrier of a cycle. He stopped him and made certain inquiries. The appellant told him that he was a milk vendor and was selling buffalo milk at the rate of Rs. 2/- per Kg. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and purchased 750 grams of milk on payment of price. The necessary documents were prepared. The milk was kept in three phials in equal quantity after mixing preservative in it. As no person of the locality was willing to be a witness of the sale the Food Inspector could not obtain signature of any public witness. However, his Sanitary Naik and one Dashrath Nath signed those documents. One phial of the sample of milk was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the milk was deficient by 37% in milk fat and by 30% in non fatty milk solids. The standard prescribed for buffalo milk was applied. In this manner the milk was held to be adulterated. After obtaining the requisite sanction of the D.M.O.H. the Food Inspector filed a complaint against the appellant. 3. The appellant denied the said charge and inter alia pleaded that he had not sold any milk to the appellant nor any document was prepared in his presence. He even denied his thumb impressions on the documents. 4. As the U.P. Amendment of the Penalty Clause came into force during the pendency of the case in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate the case was transferred to the Sessions Judge for trial. It came up for hearing before the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. He negatived all the contentions of the appellant-and came to the conclusion that the appellant was selling buffalo milk and was adulterated. Hence he convicted and sentenced him giving rise to this appeal, 5. It came up for hearing before the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. He negatived all the contentions of the appellant-and came to the conclusion that the appellant was selling buffalo milk and was adulterated. Hence he convicted and sentenced him giving rise to this appeal, 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter. The first point raised is that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to try the case which was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Azamgarh. This contention carries no force because when no case was pending in the latter court an Amendment came into force according to which the learned Sessions Judge alone could try such cases. The case had to be transferred to the Sessions Judge and there was no illegality in the trial. 6. The second point urged before me is that there was no sale of milk to the Food Inspector nor any independent witness came forward to depose about it. It is true that there is the solitary testimony of the Food Inspector on this point but as held in a number of cases decided by the Supreme Court the solitary testimony of the Food Inspector can also be believed. In the present case the Food Inspector made a note on the back of the documents that the witness of the locality were not prepared to sign the documents. In these circumstances non-production of the witnesses of the locality was not at all fatal. The statement of the Food Inspector does not suffer from any infirmity and there is no reason to discard his testimony. 7. The next contention is that the appellant was carrying milk for his relation. He could not substantiate it by convincing evidence. Therefore, this plea was rightly negatived by the learned trial Court. 8. The sanction accorded by the D.M.O.H. was also attacked in the trial Court and the contention has been reiterated in this Court but half hearted. There is no obvious defect in the sanction accorded. 9. It is urged that the prescribed quantity of milk was not sent to the Food Inspector for analysis and no reliance can be placed on his report. There is no obvious defect in the sanction accorded. 9. It is urged that the prescribed quantity of milk was not sent to the Food Inspector for analysis and no reliance can be placed on his report. Recently the Supreme Court has set at rest even this controversy by laying down that if the Public Analyst says that the quantity of milk sent to him was sufficient for analysis his report cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the quantity was not in accordance with the standard prescribed in the rules. I am, therefore, in judgment that the appellant was rightly convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 10. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the learned trial court awarded exorbitant punishment in view of the provisions of Act XXXIV of 1976. He was wrong in his view that his case was governed by the provisions of the Amendment Act because the Amendment Act came into force on 1-4-1976 and became effective from that date. The offences committed before that date were governed by the law than in existence. Prior to the Amendment Act XXXIV of 1976 the Court had the discretion to award lesser punishment. The appellant has already remained in jail for about 7 days. The offence was committed in 1975 to which a long period of 6 years has now expired and it will not be proper to send him to jail again. He is not a previous convict. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances I think the ends of justice would be amply met if his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and to a fine of Rs. 2000/-. 11. The appeal is dismissed subject to the modification that the appellants conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and to fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of its payment to six months R.I. The fine will be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of the record by the trial Court failing which the appellant will surrender himself in court or be taken into custody to serve out the alternative punishment.