Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. On 21.10.1985, Siya Ram accused-petitioner was apprehended at Bus Stand, Ladwa by Sh. Moti Ram Sharma, the Government Food Inspector (PW-1) in the presence of Dr. Hari Ram Gutain, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ladwa, while carrying two drums of cows milk for sale. The Food Inspector served a notice (Exh.PA) and indicated his intention to take a sample of the milk and after the milk had been properly stirred a sample of 660 ml. of milk was taken and divided into three parts and after addition of formalin to each bottle as a preservative, one bottle was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst in his report Ex.PD opined that the milk had a standard of 3.1% in milk fat and 8.7% in milk solids not fat and was adulterated. The petitioner moved an application for getting the second sample analysed from the Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. The report (Exh.PJ) was received from the Laboratory in which it was indicated that the sample had a standard of 3.2 milk fat and 10.9% in milk solids not fat. The petitioner was accordingly prosecuted for an offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The trial Court after examining the evidence of Inspector Moti Ram Sharma (PW-1) and Dr. Hari Ram Gutain (PW-2) and considering the reports of the Public Analyst and the Central Food Laboratory convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra was dismissed. Hence this petition. 2. Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has argued that it would be inappropriate to send the petitioner back to jail for an offence which was committed as far back as in the year 1985. In support of his plea, he has relied upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court reported as Behari Lal v. State of (U.T.) Chandigarh, 2000(1) RCR(Criminal) 222 (P&H) : 2001(1) All India Criminal L.R. 832. In support of his plea, he has relied upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court reported as Behari Lal v. State of (U.T.) Chandigarh, 2000(1) RCR(Criminal) 222 (P&H) : 2001(1) All India Criminal L.R. 832. He has also urged that in view of the discrepant reports of the Public Analyst and the Central Food Laboratory, it appears that the milk had not been properly stirred and as such the analysis had not been properly made. 3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. 4. I am of the view that as the minimum sentence of six months has been prescribed by the statute itself, it is not possible for this Court to pass an order contrary thereto, though the Honble Supreme Court can, however, in exercise of its inherent power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, pass any order. 5. It has come in the evidence that the milk had been properly stirred and as such it had been made homogeneous before the sample had been taken. It is also significant that the adulteration had been found to be with respect to milk fat and not milk solids. The Public Analyst had found that the sample milk had a standard of 3.1% in milk fat whereas the Central Food Laboratory had found the milk to have a standard of 3.2%. This minor discrepancy was bound to occur as the second sample had been analysed after a long delay. However, as the sample was taken in the year 1985 and the matter remained pending in this Court since 1988, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment from nine months to six months which is the minimum prescribed by the statute itself. The Crl. Revision stands dismissed with the above modification in the quantum of sentence.Petition dismissed.