ORDER S.L. Kochar, J. This criminal revision has been directed against the judgment dated 12-6-2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr. Appeal No. 204/2002 arising out of the judgment dated 29-4-2002 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Cr. Case. No. 23/2002 thereby convicting the applicant for the offences punishable u/s 7(1) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) and section 7(5) read with section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months with fine Rs. 1,000/- and R.I. for three months with fine Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer SI for one month and 15 days respectively. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The prosecution case, in short, was that on 13-5-1991, the Non-applicant No. 1 Nawab Khan was serving as a Food Inspector in Municipal Corporation, Indore. At about 8.30 AM, he purchased sample of milk from the applicant near Holkar College, Indore. After performing due formalities regarding taxing of sample for analysis purposes, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst and the same was found to be adulterated. A complaint was filed by the Non-applicant No. 1 before the trial Court. The applicant, on his appearance, denied the charges. According to him, he was simply taking the milk-can containing about ten litres of milk for hotelier. The said sample was not of his own. The learned Trial Court, after examining the prosecution evidence and one witness in defence and after hearing both the parties, convicted the applicant and sentenced as stated herein-above against which the applicant went up in appeal and the same has also been dismissed. The learned Lower Appellate Court has observed in para 20 of its judgment that for the offence punishable u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, the minimum sentence of six months' and fine is specified. Same is the legal position for the offence punishable u/s 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act i.e., selling the article without any licence in accordance with law. I have heard Shri Mahesh Sharma Advocate for the applicant and Shri Desai, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the Non-applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant was not the milk vendor. He was just carrying the milk for hotelier. I have heard Shri Mahesh Sharma Advocate for the applicant and Shri Desai, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the Non-applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant was not the milk vendor. He was just carrying the milk for hotelier. The Food Inspector, while taking the sample, had given an impression to him that the case was being prepared against the hotel owner and the signatures of the applicant were obtained as a witness. In this bona fide belief, he had signed the relevant documents like Panchnama etc. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that there is no compliance of section 13(2) of the Act. In the last, his prayer is for sentencing the applicant to the period already undergone. The applicant has undergone one month's jail-sentence. He is in jail from 12-6-2002. He also submitted that the milk being a primary food, minimum jail-sentence of three months is prescribed in the statute. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General Shr Desai contended that the milk is not a primary food. Relying on a judgment reported in Hariram Phul Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, . Contrary to this, the learned counsel for the applicant is not able to show any other decision of this Court or by the Apex Court though time was given to him on 12-7-2002. So far as compliance of section 13(2) of the Act is concerned, the Food Inspector Nawab Khan (PW-1) has very specifically stated that the copy of the Analyst's report was duly sent by Registered Post. He has also proved the Postal Receipt (Ex. P/3) and the memo which was sent to the applicant (Ex. P/14). There is a presumption u/s 27 of the General Clauses Act that a letter containing the documents if was sent, by Registered Post and unless the contrary is proved to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the milk is primary food, is also not sustainable in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Hari Ram vs. State of M.P. (supra). The milk is not a primary food. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the milk is primary food, is also not sustainable in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Hari Ram vs. State of M.P. (supra). The milk is not a primary food. The conviction of the applicant for the offence u/s 16(1)(a)(ii) is not sustainable in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Vasudev Bhatt vs. Ganpat, 1975 MPLJ 216 , when the person is prosecuted for selling of adulterated milk, he can be convicted only u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, because, the adulterated milk is also an article of food. For convicting the person u/s 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, two conditions are required to be satisfied, (i) that the person should be importing mainly for sale or storing, selling or distributing any article of food other than the article of food referred to in sub-clause (i) of section 16(1)(a) and (ii) the Act should be in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. Unless both these conditions are satisfied, a person cannot be held guilty u/s 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. In the instant case, the applicant is proved to have sold the adulterated milk, an article of food referred to in sub-clause (i) of section 16(1)(a) of the Act. The fact that the adulterated milk is also considered to be an article of food, is clear from perusal of the provisions of section 7 of the Act. Therefore, the applicant cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Thus, his conviction for this offence is hereby set aside, but his conviction u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act for selling adulterated milk is maintained. In view of the judgment reported in Deshraj vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2002 JT Supplement 1 if the minimum sentence is prescribed in the statute, that has to be awarded and, therefore, no interference is called for on the question of awarding the sentence to the period already undergone. The applicant has already been awarded minimum jail-sentence i.e. of six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In the result, the conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable u/s 16(1)(a)(i) is upheld and the conviction for the offence punishable u/s 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is set aside. The applicant has already been awarded minimum jail-sentence i.e. of six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In the result, the conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable u/s 16(1)(a)(i) is upheld and the conviction for the offence punishable u/s 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is set aside. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the amount of fine awarded u/s 16(1)(a)(ii) has already been deposited. If so, that amount shall be refunded to the applicant. The revision thus stands partly allowed as indicated herein-above. Final Result : Allowed