JUDGMENT This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1.12.97 passed by IInd A.SJ. Shajapur, in Cr. appeal No. 3/97 whereby the conviction and sentence awarded by C.J.M. Shajapur in Cr. Case No. 53/94 passed on 16.12.96 were confirmed. This prosecution case, in brief, was that on 29.7.93, Food Inspector C.L. Lakshkar, visited 'Aashirwad' Bhojnalay and after giving him notice under form No. 6, purchased 600 gms. of 'Aata', divided it into three parts and put it into three dry polythene bags and sealed them according to the rules. One sample was sent to Public Analyst, Bhopal and two samples were deposited with Local Health Authority. The public analyst opined that the 'Aata' did not confirm to the standard prescribed under the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, therefore, after notice complaint was filed in the Court of CJM Shajapur, who convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. The appellant after being unsuccessful in appeal, has filed this revision petition. Shri Kutumble and Shri Harish Kumar, LC for the appellant, submitted that the quantity of ash insoluble in dilute HCI was found 0.21% while according to Item A. 18.01, it should not have been more than 0.15% on dry weight basis, therefore, the difference is of only .06. The Supreme Court in case of 1995(1) Food Adulteration Cases 126, Naoratanmal v. State of Rajasthan, held that such a difference could be a possibility of error of judgment in analysis also and acquitted the accused. This argument is not acceptable. In Naoratanmal's case adulteration was found marginal almost a 300th part of the substance. But in the case on hand, adulteration was not marginal. 0.21 % Ash insoluble was found while it should not have been more than 0.15% (on dry weight basis). The argument that before taking sample, 'Aata' was not mixed, has no substance. LC further argued that 'Aata' was not stored for sale, the applicant was not selling 'Aata', he was running Restaurant and selling cooked food and not 'Aata'. This argument is also not acceptable as 'Chapatis' were prepared from 'Aata' and sold to the consumers. It is, therefore, clear that the 'Aata' was stored for sale. LC further argued that the polythene bags in which sample was taken were not proper containers for taking sample of 'Aata'. This argument is also not acceptable as 'Chapatis' were prepared from 'Aata' and sold to the consumers. It is, therefore, clear that the 'Aata' was stored for sale. LC further argued that the polythene bags in which sample was taken were not proper containers for taking sample of 'Aata'. But I do not find that the public analyst found any leakage in the container nor it was torn. It had not become unfit for analysis. LC for the appellant lastly submitted that the sample was taken six years back. The appellant has suffered more than 37 days of incarceration and now it will serve no purpose in sending him jail again. He, therefore, prays that the appellant be sentenced to the period already undergone. He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Braham Das v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1988 SC 1789 and the decision of this Court in case of Chhaganlal v. Municipal Corporation Bhopal and another, reported in 1997 F AC 185. This argument appears to be acceptable. As the incident took place 6 years back. Now no purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail again. The ends of justice would meet, if the applicant is sentenced to the period already undergone and fine amount is enhanced. In the result, the conviction of the applicant is maintained. However, the jail-sentence of six months is set-aside and instead he is sentenced to the period already undergone and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, three months further RI. The applicant shall deposit this amount (after adjusting the amount already deposited) within two months from today, failing which he shall surrender before CJM Shajapur on or before 24.6.99 for serving out the jail-sentence in default of payment of fine. The revision stands disposed as indicated above.