1. This revision is by the State and is directed against the correctness of the sentence passed by the court below. The prosecution was for the offence punishable under S.16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and R.50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The prosecution case was that the accused, a vendor in milk, had sold 660 m. Is. of milk to pw.1 for analysis and that in terms of Est. P-5 report of the Public Analyst it was found to contain not less than 16 percent of added water. Though the accused contested the matter, the court below found that the offence was proved. However, in the matter of sentence a lenient view was taken by the court below. Having noted that the accused was placed in very difficult circumstances in life and was under an obligation to look after his family, let him off under S.4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on his executing a bond for Rs. 1000/- with a surety for the like sum, to be of good behaviour for a period of two years and prepared in the meanwhile to receive the sentence if and when found necessary.

2. Sri. P. N. Rajan, the learned State Prosecutor, contends that leniency shown by the court below i