S. C. AGARWAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed by the petitioner Liyakat Ali against the judgment dated 28. 3. 1981 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, whereby the conviction of the petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- have been affirmed.
(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are that on 28. 4. 1975 at about 5 p. m. , the Food Inspector Shri Veer Singh took a sample of milk from the petitioner vide memo Ex. P. 2. In the said memo, it is mentioned that the container from which the sample of milk was taken, did not indicate the animal whose milk was contained in it. THE sample of the milk was sent for examination to the Public Analyst and according to the report Ex. P: 6, the fat contend was 3. 6% and solids non-fat content was 7. 4%. Treating the milk to be buffalo miik, opinion was expressed that milk was adulterated by addition of 17% water after abstraction of 13% of original fat. On the basis of the said report of the Public Analyst, the petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raisinghnagar, by his judgment dated 14. 7. 1977 and sentenced to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 months. On appeal the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar, by his judgment dated 20. 12. 1978 remanded the matter to the trial court with a direction that the sample of the milk should be sent for chemical examination to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. THEreafter the sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. THE report dated 6. 10. 1980, received from the Director, Central Food Laboratory shows milk fat as 4. 9% and milk solids non fat as 7. 9%. After the receipt of the said report, the Judicial Magistrate by his judgment dated 23. 3. 1961 convicted the petitioner of the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. THE said conviction and sentence of the petitioner was affirmed in appeal by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, by his judgment dated 23. 3. 1981. Hence, this revision. Mr. M. L. Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that this incident was of 28. 4. 1975 i. e. prior to the amendment introduced in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in 1976. Shri Garg has urged that the petitioner has remained in custody for 27 days and that according to the report received from the Director, Central Food Laboratory, the fat content was 4. 9% whereas according to the standard prescribed for buffalo milk for Rajasthan the fat content should be 5% and for cow milk it should be 3. 5%. The submission of Shri Garg is that the sample of the milk fulfilled the prescribed standard for cow milk and for buffalo milk also the deficiency in the fat content was to the extent of 0. 1% only. It has been submitted by Shri Garg that the petitioner is only a small milk vender carrying milk on bicycle and he has urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of Shri Garg and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and specially the fact that according to the report of the Central Food Laboratory the fat content of the milk sample was 4. 9% and only 0. 1% less than the standard prescribed for buffalo milk for Rajasthan. I am of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the sentence imposed on the petitioner is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained. The petitioneris allowed two months time to deposit the fine, if it has not been deposited so far. In case the fine in deposited within a period of two months, the bail bonds shall stand cancelled. If the fine is not deposited within the period of two months, the petitioner would undergo rigorous imprisonment of two months. .;