JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated 10.4.96 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge, SC/ST cases) Tonk, whereby he dismissed the petitioner's appeal and confirmed the judgment dated 2.3.94 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk, whereby the petitioner was convicted for offence under section 7/16 (1) (a) (i) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short `the Act') and sentenced him to six months S.l. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Shri G.C. Chatterjee at the very outset has submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the petitioner, but asserted that in this case, the accused- petitioner has already suffered a sentence for a period of three months and twenty three days till date and that there exists mitigatic circumstances in this case and as such the substantive sentence of the petition be reduced from six months to the period already undergone by him. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this revision petition on the ground that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is neither excessive nor shocking to the conscience. 4. I have bestowed my careful consideration to the rival submissions. In Nagarmal v. State of Rajasthan (1990 Raj. Cr. Cases, p. 220) , interpreting the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, it has been held that the discretion vests in the Court only in the case where the offence under sub- clause (i) (a) of the Act and is with respect to an article of food being primary food, which is adulterated due to humane agency or is with respect of an article of food, which is misbranded within the meaning of sub-clause (k) of clause (ix) of Section 2, or if the offence is under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), but not being an offence with respect to the contravention of any rule made under clause (a) or clause (g) of sub-sec. (1A) of Section 23 or under clause (b) of sub-sec. (2) of Section 24, that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment impose sentence of imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years, and with fine, which shall not be less than five hundred rupees. (2) of Section 24, that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment impose sentence of imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years, and with fine, which shall not be less than five hundred rupees. It has further been held that the milk falls within the meaning of primary food. 5. In the instant case, the sample of milk of cow and she- buffalo was taken by the Food Inspector Tonk on 28.7.89 from the petitioner, which as per the report of Public Analyst was found to be adulterated. The petitioner is a petty milk vendor. He is at present aged about 37 years. He has been facing trial since the year 1989. He has already suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial strain. He is the only bread earner of his family. He was resented for his illegal act. The alleged incident took place some six years back. Therefore, keeping in view of these mitigating circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice will be secured if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced from six months to the period already undergone. 6. In the result, this revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 7/16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, his substantive sentence is reduced from six months Rl to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand) is maintained. The petitioner is at present lodged in District Jail, Tonk. The Jail authorities be informed accordingly.Petition partly allowed. *******