JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - Applicant was convicted by a 1st class Magistrate, Ghaziabad under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months' R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- On appeal his conviction and sentence was confirmed by the learned Sessions judge. 2. According to the prosecution Sri G.D. Talwar, Food Inspector, Municipal Board, Ghaziabad took sample of Gajar-Kahalwa prepared in Desi ghee from the shop of the applicant in the presence of witnesses on payment and subsequently got a portion of it analysed by the Public Analyst whose report dated April 3, 1967' indicated that the sample was coloured with coal tar dye, namely orange II which was not one of the coal tar dyes, permitted for use in food stuffs tinder S. 28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. Applicant was, therefore, put up on trial for the breach of S. 7 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. Applicant denied to have sold the Halwa. 4. The prosecution case was unfolded by Inspector Taiwar, his Safai Nayak Ramphal. One Jai Prakash, a member of the public, was examined in support of the prosecution case who stated that lie had not witnessed the recovery but had signed the memo when it was brought by the Food Inspector. Applicant too examined some evidence in support of his case that he had not sold the Halwa to the Food Inspector. Not content with the direct evidence of the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution and defence both parties summoned experts to prove their respective contentions. The prosecution examined Sri Salek Chand Verma who stated that the signature on the recovery memo was that of the applicant. Mr. Verma's teacher Raizada Yograj Gupta came in defence and stated that the disputed signature was not that of the applicant. 5. The courts below after going through a large number of cases decided by the various High Courts under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act reached the conclusion that the Gajar-Ka-Halwa was sold by the applicant; he had contravened the provisions of the Act. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant. I have also perused the impugned orders and the relevant portions of the evidence on record. 7. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant. I have also perused the impugned orders and the relevant portions of the evidence on record. 7. In view of the report of the Public Analyst that although no preservative had been added to the sample no change had taken place in its constituents which could have interfered with his analysis, even after four months, I have no other option but to accept his report as correct because the applicant had taken no steps to get a report from the Director of Central Food Laboratory for superseding the same. 8. It appears that the halwa was prepared in Desi Ghee which is a .rare phenomenon in these days of widespread use of hydrogenated oil for such purposes on a mass scale. Applicant had, however, used a coal tar dye viz. Orange II which is not permissible under the rules. The permitted coal tar dye as enumerated under R. 28 are red, yellow, blue and black of certain colour index but not Orange II. There is nothing on the record to suggest that coal tar dye used by the applicant was deleterious to health for injurious for human consumption. There is nothing also on the record to suggest that the applicant is a previous convict. In these circumstances I think that the sentence imposed on the applicant is excessive, and there are special reasons for reducing the same. 9. In the result this revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicant for an offence under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him is set aside. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- there tinder is however maintained. In default of payment of fine he shall under go six months' R. I. The applicant shall deposit the fine, if not already paid, within one month from the receipt of the record by the trial court. The applicant was on bill. His bail bonds are discharged. The need not surrender. The stay order is vacated.