JUDGMENT P.N. Harkauli, J. - Amin, appellant, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, convicting him under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to four months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine to two months further R.I. 2. The prosecution case is that on 7-1-1976, the Food Inspector saw the appellant carrying buffalo milk for sale and thereupon he took sample of the milk, which upon analysis was found to be deficient in non-fatty solids content by about 33%. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and denied that he was carrying milk for sale. He alleged that he was taking milk for his ailing mother. 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined the Food Inspector, Narendra Nath Singh (P.W. 1) and Head Constable, Babar Ali Khan (P.W.2). 5. No witness was examined in defence. 6. The learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution allegation that the appellant was carrying milk for sale was not proved because there was a contradiction between the statements of the two prosecution witnesses with regard to the quantity of milk in the container which the appellant was carrying. In my opinion this contradiction is not important because the witnesses came to give evidence after the lapse of several months and also made their statements about the quantity of milk from estimate. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant then contended that there was no proof that the appellant was carrying milk for sale. He pointed out that the Food Inspector has admitted in cross-examination that he did not see the appellant selling milk to any one else nor did the other witness say that he saw the appellant selling milk to any one else. But the evidence of the Food Inspector shows that the appellant had sold the sample-to him. So it cannot be said that the appellant had not sold the milk. 9. I am, therefore of the opinion that there is no good reason for disagreeing with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. 10. But the evidence of the Food Inspector shows that the appellant had sold the sample-to him. So it cannot be said that the appellant had not sold the milk. 9. I am, therefore of the opinion that there is no good reason for disagreeing with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant then pointed out that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge himself shows that at the time of the trial the appellant was fifteen years old and so at the time of the occurrence the appellant must have been about fourteen years old. He argued that no useful purpose will be served by sending such a young boy to jail for a short period of four months; on the other hand it will only turn him into a hardened criminal. I am inclined to agree with this contention. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant should be maintained but his sentence should be reduced to the imprisonment undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 200/- only. 11. The appeal is dismissed and the conviction of the appellant is affirmed. But his sentence is reduced to the imprisonment undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine the appellant will undergo two months R. I. The appellant is allowed one months time from the date of receipt of the record in the trial court to pay the fine. If he fails to pay the fine within the time allowed or such further time as the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned may allow he will be taken into custody to serve out the sentence passed in default of payment of fine.