JUDGMENT S.I. Jafri, J. - This revision filed by Ram Autar, applicant impugning his conviction under section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, was admitted by this Court on the question of sentences only. 2. Primarily, applicant Ram Autar was challenged under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and he was tried by Shri G.K. Chaturvedi, Special Judl. Magistrate (E.C. Act) Budaun in Criminal Case No. 749 of 1981, The learned Munsif Magistrate upon a consideration of the materials on record, recorded a finding of conviction against the applicant and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and further to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the applicant went up in appeal before the Sessions Judge Budaun, who by his judgment and order dated 15.6.1985 dismissed appeal. Hence this revision has come up in this Court. 3. For proper appraisal of the facts and circumstances involved in the case, briefly put the prosecution case is that on 28.11.1982 at about 1.00 P.M., in Qasha Barbrala, Food Inspector Raj Bardhan Bhatnagar found the applicant selling and exposing for sale 'Saphaid Zeera' for human consumption. Food Inspector purchased 450 gram of Saphaid Zeera for Rs. 6.30 and obtained receipt for the payment of price. The said Zeera was divided into three equal portions and filed in three phials. Each phial was sealed. The sample was sent for analysis to the Public analyst. The sample of Saphaid Zeera was found adulterated by Public Analyst. After obtaining sanction from C.M.O. challan report was submitted to the Court. 4. The applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge. 5. I have gone through the judgments and orders of both the court below. I have also examined each and every circumstance of the case from each conceivable angle. A probe into the facts and circumstances on record of the case leads me to a conclusion that the findings arrived at by the courts below are quite cogent and reasoned and do not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, I do not propose to record a finding different from the findings recorded by the courts below. The instant case involves adulteration in Saphaid Zeera which had been exposed for sale for human consumption. Adulteration in the articles of human consumption merits to be viewed with all seriousness. This is a crime against humanity and against society. 6. Hence, I do not propose to record a finding different from the findings recorded by the courts below. The instant case involves adulteration in Saphaid Zeera which had been exposed for sale for human consumption. Adulteration in the articles of human consumption merits to be viewed with all seriousness. This is a crime against humanity and against society. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel for the applicant invokes the mercy of this Court in order to give a lenient treatment to the applicant in so far as sentences recorded against him are concerned. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the occurrence in the instant case is of the year 1982 and after such a long lapse of time, if the applicant is recommitted to Jail to serve out the sentence as imposed upon him by the courts below, it would displace the tempo of applicant's life. Here, would like to observe that there it concurrent and consistent findings of the two courts below against the applicant is so far as his guilt is concerned. The offence assumes seriousness inasmuch as it involves adulteration in the articles of human consumption. The courts below have already shown leniency to the applicant in the matter of sentences. In such cases, remain of the view that the sentences should be properly graded to fit the degree of gravity of the offence. However as a consideration that a period of 7 years has elapsed since the date of occurrence, am pursuaded to reduce the sentences both the imprisonment and that of fine. 7. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. While affirming the conviction, reduce the sentence of imprisonment from six months to three months and further sentence of fine from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 500/-. The applicant is allowed three months to deposit the amount of fine in the court of C.J.M. Budaun. In default of payment of fine, the applicant shall undergo R.I. for three months. The sum of fine of Rs. 500/-shall go to the State Exchequer. 8. Office is directed to proceed in accordance with law.