JUDGMENT V.N. Khare, J. - The present criminal revision under sections 401 and 397, Cr. P.C. which was admitted on 9.7.1985 on the question of sentence only, is directed against the judgment dated 13.6.1985 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rampur maintaining the conviction and sentence dated 21.3.85 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Special Court No. 3, Rampur, by which applicant was convicted under section 7/16 of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of the fine, to undergo two months R.I. 2. Briefly state the prosecution case was that at about 1.30 p.m. on 24.1.1982, Rafiq Ilahi, Food Inspector found the applicant selling cow-buffalo mixed milk in Gali Baij Nath, Rampur without licence. Suspecting the milk to be adulterated, the Food Inspector served a notice upon the applicant and purchased 650 mililitres milk from him after paying the price. The sample of the milk was sent to Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst vide his report found the milk to he deficient in fact to the extent of 74% in non-fatty solids to the extent of 15%. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector submitted his report to the Chief Medical Officer for grant of sanction to prosecuted the applicant. The Chief Medical Officer after perusing the papers and considering the fact and circumstances of the case, accorded the sanction to prosecute the applicant. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by the Food Inspector in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Rampur. 3. After considering the entire evidence in the record, the learned Magistrate found the applicant guilty of the charges levelled against him, and as such convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved against the judgment dated 21.3.1985 passed by the Magistrate, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Rampur, which was dismissed and the order convicting and sentence the applicant to six months' R.I. and imposing a fine of Rs. 1000/- was maintained. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is 16 years of age and that he has already undergone imprisonment for about one month. 1000/- was maintained. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is 16 years of age and that he has already undergone imprisonment for about one month. He further prayed that considering the age of the applicant, the conviction recorded against him may be maintained but the sentence awarded by the courts below be modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the applicant. Having gone through the impugned judgments, I do not find any infirmity or illegality so far as the conviction against the applicant is concerned. However, considering the age of the applicant and other circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released and the sentence is liable to be modified as he has already undergone imprisonment for about a month. 6. I, therefore, allow this revision in part with this modification that the conviction recorded by the court below is maintained, but the sentences and fine imposed upon the applicant is reduced to (he period of imprisonment already undergone by him. The applicant is already on bail. He need not surrender. Sureties furnished by him shall stand discharged, if the amount of fine has already been deposited, the same shall be refused to the applicant.