JUDGMENT 1. - This is a criminal revision petition arising out of the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the P.F. Act). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk under his judgment dated 21st September 1984 convicted the accused petitioner u/s 7/16 of the P.F. Act and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment. The accused petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment before the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk and the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk under his judgment dated 30th April 1990 dismissed the appeal. 2. A perusal of the judgment of the learned appellate court will show that only two points were agitated before that curt and first was that the milk was not stirred and was not made homogeneous and it is in contravention of Rule 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration rules. The other argument was that the accused petitioner was not the owner of hotel and one Makhan Lal was the licence holder and, therefore the accused petitioner has been falsely implicated. 3. I find no merit in either of these contentions which were also raised before the learned appellate Court. So far as the first contention raised before the appellate court and reiterated in this court it may be stated that Kutubuddin Khan, Food Inspector, Tonk has clearly stated in his statement that he had stirred the milk and the milk was made homogeneous and then he took 660 ml. of milk after paying its price and then filled that 660 ml. of milk into three clean phials and 18 drops of formaline were also added. Thereafter, each sample was wrapped, crocked and sealed. That apart even if the milk was not stirred, in this case finding has been rightly recorded and the milk was stirred and was made homogeneous, in my opinion the only effect may be the variance of milk fat and milk solid non-fat. A look at the report of the public analyst will show that both the milk fat and milk solid non-fat were found below the prescribed standard. 4. A look at the report of the public analyst will show that both the milk fat and milk solid non-fat were found below the prescribed standard. 4. The next contention of the learned counsel which was raised before the learned appellate Court and has been re-agitated in this court that the accused petitioner was not the owner and it may be stated that he may or may not be the owner of the shop but he was found selling milk and was the only person present at the shop. He was he who was selling the milk. 5. Consequently, though I find no merit in this revision petition so far as merits are concerned, but I have been taking a view that if the case falls under the Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 16 the court has power to award minimum sentence of three months and a fine of Rs. 500/-. This case definitely falls under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the P.F. Act, because the milk is primary food which was found adulterated due to human agency, there is no previous conviction on record and the accused appears to be a petty shop keeper. 6. Consequently, I hereby partly allow this revision petition. While maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, I hereby reduce the sentence awarded by the courts below to the accused petitioner to a sentence of three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days simple imprisonment. The accused shall immediately surrender in the trial court and undergo the remaining part of the sentence, if any. Failing which the court shall take necessary steps.Revision partly allowed. *******