JUDGMENT : P. Sinha, C.J.I. 1. The appellant was tried before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, 1st Class, Jorhat, for "selling and stocking for sale" adulterated tea leaves and thereby having committed an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 37 of 1954. The Magistrate convicted the appellant and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay Rs. 2,000 as fine and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months in addition. This order of conviction and sentence was confirmed, in appeal, by the Court of Session, Jorhat. An application filed by the appellant invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court of Assam was summarily dismissed. The appellant has appealed to this Court against that order with special leave. At the trial of the appellant the Municipal Board relied upon the evidence of Dr. Phukan, the Municipal Board Health Officer, one M.M. Mitter - A Sub-Inspector of the Tea Board - and the report of the Public Analyst who analysed the contents of the sample of tea leaves attached by the Health Officer. Dr. Phukan stated that on September 11, 1958, he visited the shop of the appellant with two witnesses and purchased tea leaves and after making three samples, gave one sample to the appellant and sent the other two to Public Analyst, Shillong for his report. M.M. Mitter, the Sub-Inspector, supported the statement of Dr. Phukan. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the tea analysed by him was not of the "prescribed standard". The appellant denied that he possessed any tea leaves or that he sold any to the Health Officer. He pleaded that the shop from which the tea leaves were alleged to have been purchased did not belong to him and in support of this he examined a defence witness Rewat Mai Karnani. The Magistrate disbelieved the defence and convicted the appellant. 2. Mr. Chatterjee for the appellant contends that as the samples of tea leaves attached on September 11, 1958, were put by the Health Officer in "cloth sacks" and the same were not analysed by the Public Analyst for more than seven weeks, the report could not form a safe guide for assessing whether the tea leaves were adulterated. 2. Mr. Chatterjee for the appellant contends that as the samples of tea leaves attached on September 11, 1958, were put by the Health Officer in "cloth sacks" and the same were not analysed by the Public Analyst for more than seven weeks, the report could not form a safe guide for assessing whether the tea leaves were adulterated. Counsel submits that the Health Officer had in putting the samples of tea leaves in "cloth sacks" violated rules 14, 15 and 16 framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and that on account of exposure to moisture because of defective packing the samples must have deteriorated, and if they did not conform, on analysis, to the prescribed standard the appellant could not be held guilty of the offence charged. But there is no evidence on the record that the samples were not put in any "suitable container sufficiently tight to prevent entrance of moisture". The plea that the samples were not put into containers as required by the rules was never raised in the trial Court nor even in the Sessions Court. It is true that in Ext. 2, which is the receipt given by the appellant to the Health Officer, it is stated that the sample was in a "sealed sack" but there is nothing to show that this sealed sack was not put in a container as required by the rules. The Sessions Judge has found that the sample of tea leaves could not have deteriorated in the interval between the date on which it was attached and the date on which it was analysed. We do not think, on the material on the record, it is open to Mr. Chatterjee to raise this question for the first time in this appeal. 3. On the evidence it is common ground that the sample of tea leaves analysed by the Public Analyst was not upto the prescribed standard. The appellant did not make any attempt to obtain a certificate from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The certificate of the Public Analyst must therefore be regarded as evidence of the facts stated therein. The offence of "selling and storing for sale" adulterated tea leaves is therefore made out against the appellant. 4. The certificate of the Public Analyst must therefore be regarded as evidence of the facts stated therein. The offence of "selling and storing for sale" adulterated tea leaves is therefore made out against the appellant. 4. The trial Magistrate sentenced the appellant to suffer the maximum sentence prescribed under Section 16 of the Act for the first offence. But the variations found in the report of the Public Analyst from the prescribed standard do not appear to be very great. Normally we do not interfere with the exercise of discretion in the matter of sentence passed by the trial court. But in the circumstances of the case, we think that for the first offence the sentence appears to be some what disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. We, therefore reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. We, however, maintain the sentence of fine and the sentence in default of payment of fine. Subject to the modification as to sentence this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.