JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Mathura. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. A sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector from the applicant on 16th August, 78 at 10 a.m. in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The applicant was carrying 12 Kgs. of mixed milk of cow and buffalo on his cycle. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst whose report disclosed that it was deficient in non-fatty solids by 19 per cent. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. Counsel for the applicant has argued that the accused was taking this milk for offering Pooja at the temple of Rangeshwar Mahadeo. The evidence produced in the defence has been rejected by the courts below. The evidence disclosed that prior to the taking of the sample by the Food Inspector the accused had sold two Kgs. of milk to the Tea-stall which is situate in the Rangeshwar Mahadeo Temple. As such there was ample ground for the courts below to reject the defence case. 4. The prosecution case has been fully established from the evidence on the record. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by them. The applicant's counsel has argued that since the deficiency is only in non-fatty solids the sentence imposed upon the applicant may be reduced. In my opinion, such a relief is not possible. Even in the cases of small difference in fatty or non-fatty solids, which do not confirm to the standard prescribed under the Rules, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the offence is complete. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the difference is marginal and can be the result of mistake in analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the non-fatty solids are less by 19 per cent. As such no alteration in sentence is permissible in law. 5. This revision application is accordingly dismissed. The applicant is on bail. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the difference is marginal and can be the result of mistake in analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the non-fatty solids are less by 19 per cent. As such no alteration in sentence is permissible in law. 5. This revision application is accordingly dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment. The interim order passed by this court on 15th April, 1981 staying realisation of fine is hereby vacated.