JUDGMENT M.N. Shukla, J. - The applicant was convicted by a Magistrate First Class, Aligarh, of an offence u /S. 16 (a) of the UP Prevention of Food Adulteration Act' and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,500/-; In default of payment of fine lie was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The conviction of the applicant was maintained in appeal by the II Tem. Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh, but the sentence was reduced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- Hence, this revision. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that on April 4, 1966 at 12 p. m. Sri R. N. Seth, Food Inspector, took a sample of `lung' from the applicant on payment of its price. He divided the sample into three equal parts and sent one of them to the Public Analyst for examination. The Public Analyst reported that the 'Fling' was adulterated. On this allegation the applicant was prosecuted. 3. The applicant admitted the taking of the sample from him but denied having received any price for the same. 4. The prosecution examined the Food Inspector and one Sobran Singh a witness who was present at the time of the taking of the sample. 5. The courts below believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the applicant as aforesaid. 6. The revision is based on the following grounds. Firstly, that the article alleged to be adulterated was not meant for human consumption but for agricultural purposes: Secondly, that the adulteration had not been proved. Thirdly, the witnesses of the locality were not taken by the Food Inspector at the time of the taking of the sample. Fourthly, no price was paid by the Food Inspector and so the taking of the sample did not amount to sale so as to bring an offence under the Act. I find no force in any of these submissions. 7. The finding recorded by the courts below in the present case on the basis of evidence is that the `Ring' was sold as an article of human consumption. The mere fact that it can also be utilised for agricultural purposes would not militate against the same being sold as an article for human consumption as has been established in the present case. Therefore, there has been nothing illegal in the conviction of the applicant. 8. The mere fact that it can also be utilised for agricultural purposes would not militate against the same being sold as an article for human consumption as has been established in the present case. Therefore, there has been nothing illegal in the conviction of the applicant. 8. The factum of adulteration has also been established by the report of the Public Analyst who gave his data for coming to the conclusion that the article was adulterated as it contained 53.5 per cent of starch. It has been found by the courts below that the starch present in, the sample was a foreign matter, not prescribed within the constituents given in the Appendix of the UP Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. I find no reason to differ from the view taken by the Courts below. Thus, adulteration was established. 9. The omission to call two witnesses of the locality by the Food Inspector is not a defect which may be regarded as fatal to the prosecution. I am fortified in the view that I am taking by the decision in Leela Rain v. State, 1964 Cr. Law Journal 449. Thus the fact that no witnesses of the locality were called when the sample was taken does not vitiate the conviction of the applicant. 10. The last contention raised on behalf of the applicant also is untenable. It is based on a question of fact as to whether the price of the sample was paid by the Food Inspector or not. The learned Sessions judge has recorded a finding that the price was paid. He relied on the statement of the Food Inspector to the effect that he paid Rs. 15/- for purchasing 600 gms. of 'Hing' from the applicant. Reliance was also placed on the receipt for the said amount which was on record. Nothing has beer shown to me that this finding was perverse or illegal. 11. Thus, there is no force in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. The applicant is on hail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him. His bail bonds are cancelled. The interim order staying the realisation of fine is vacated.