JUDGMENT Hari Swarup, J. This revision has been filed by the applicant Smt. Indu Bala Pandey against her conviction under Section 7|16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence awarded to her. The learned Magistrate convicted the applicant for selling ground 'Haldi' dyed with prohibited colour. He awarded her the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court a fine of Rs. 1,000. The learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but reduced the fine to Rs. 500. The prosecution case was that the applicant carried on a business of selling spices, including Haldi in powdered form in packets. The Food Inspector purchased a sample of Haldi and sent it for chemical analysis and it was found to contain prohibited colour. The defence of the applicant was that she had purchased the 'Haldi' from the market and had ground it. Food, under Section 2 (v) of the Act, includes any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of human food and any flavouring matter or condiment. Haldi, accordingly, will be 'food'. Under Section 2(i) (j) of the Act, an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if any colouring matter other than that prescribed in respect thereof is present in it. The 'Haldi' sold by the applicant was, therefore, adulterated food. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was not guilty as she had given evidence that she had purchased the article from another person. Section 19 of the Act however saves the purchaser only if the purchase is made with a written warranty in the prescribed form. No warranty has been produced in this case. Clause (1) of Section 19 says that mere ignorance of the vendor about the nature of the substance or quality of the food sold by him would be no defence. Learned counsel then referred to Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and contended that the quantity of the sample sent for analysis was not adequate for proper analysis Rule 22 provided that the approximate quantity of the sample of spices to be sent to the public analyst should be 150 grams. The Food Inspector purchased 450 grams of Haldi and divided it into three parts. Each part therefore comes to the prescribed quantity of 150 grams. The Food Inspector purchased 450 grams of Haldi and divided it into three parts. Each part therefore comes to the prescribed quantity of 150 grams. Learned counsel then argued that the item is not covered by the term 'spices'. According to the New International Dictionary 'spices' means: "any of various aromatic vegetable products (as pepper, cinnamon, nutmeg, mace, ginger, cloves) used in cookery to season food and to flavour foods." 'Haldi' will thus come under the classification of 'spices'. Learned counsel then contended that the petitioner deserved to be released under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The finding of the trial court is that the accused had been carrying on the business of selling ground spices in packets to retailers. The 'Haldi' given to the Inspector was only a sample from what the accused was regularly selling. The impact of the offence that she had committed is wide on society. The offence consists of an activity in the nature of a business it brings commercial gain and is thus potent with the chances of respectability. The circumstances do not justify the exercise of court's discretion in favour of the present applicant under Section 360, Cr.P.C. Section 16 of the Act prescribes the minimum punishment in such cases to be imprisonment for a term, of six months and a fine of not less than Rs. 1,000. It is only when the adulteration is covered by subclause (1) of clause (i) of Section 2, or misbranding under subclause (k) of clause (ix) of Section 2, or when the offence is under subclause (ii) of clause (a) of Section 16(1), that a sentence below the minimum can be given. In the present case which is not covered by these provisions, there was no power in the courts below to award a sentence less than the minimum prescribed. Even if the court could award a lesser sentence, no adequate reason has been given. The only reason given by the learned Magistrate is that the accused is a woman. That has no nexus with the commission of the offence. The reason ought to have has some nexus with the nature of the offence, or to the tender age or poor health of the offender. Merely the sex of a person cannot provide good reason for not awarding a proper sentence of imprisonment. That has no nexus with the commission of the offence. The reason ought to have has some nexus with the nature of the offence, or to the tender age or poor health of the offender. Merely the sex of a person cannot provide good reason for not awarding a proper sentence of imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge has given no reason at all for reducing the sentence even further. The revision is dismissed. It is regretable that the authorities concerned have taken no steps to see that the sentence prescribed by law is given to the accused. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh and to the Courts below.