ORDER K.N. Srivastava, J. - This is a revision against the judgment and order of the 1st Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Mirzapur maintaining the order of conviction passed upon the Applicant u/s 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to six months' simple imprisonment, coupled with a fine of Rs. 1,00/-. 2. The Applicant is said to have exposed mustard oil for sale at his shop, a sample of which was taken by the Food Inspector. It was sent to the Public Analyst for examination and report. The Public Analyst reported that it was mixed with a large quantity of linseed oil. After receipt of the report of the public Analyst the Applicant was challenged. He was tried, convicted and sentenced by the magistrate. On appeal, the lower appellate court-dismissed the appeal, but instead of rigorous imprisonment ordered the Applicant to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, coupled with the fine imposed by the trial court. 3. The Applicant denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. He stated that only a small quantity of oil had been kept by him for personal use and it was not for sale. 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that on the question as to whether the Applicant had exposed the mustard oil for sale there was only the evidence of the Food Inspector. This argument has no force. There is a clear finding by the trial court, which was accepted by the lower appellate court, that the Applicant had exposed mustard oil for sale. It was not necessary for the prosecution to have examined witnesses in whose presence this sample was taken. All that Section 10 of the Act requires is that the sample has to be taken in the presence of witnesses. This section was complied with by the Food Inspector at the time the sample was taken. In order to prove this fact the evidence of a number of witnesses is not necessary. It is only the quality of evidence and not the quantum of evidence which matters. Both the trial court and the lower appellate court have believed the evidence of the Food Inspector and it cannot be said that they were in any way wrong in doing so. 5. It is only the quality of evidence and not the quantum of evidence which matters. Both the trial court and the lower appellate court have believed the evidence of the Food Inspector and it cannot be said that they were in any way wrong in doing so. 5. The next argument which was advanced in this case was that the Applicant was a petty shopkeeper and there was nothing on the record to show that he had any previous conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to his credit. Therefore, lenient punishment should have been awarded to him. It is proved from the evidence on the record that the Applicant is a petty shopkeeper and because there is nothing on the record to show that he has any previous conviction to his credit, therefore it is just and proper that a lenient sentence be awarded to the Applicant. The Applicant has rightly been convicted u/s 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 6. Coming to the question of sentence, in view of the above facts and circumstances, I think that a sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- would be a just and proper sentence to the Applicant in this case. 7. The revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the Applicant u/s 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is maintained, but his sentence of six months' simple imprisonment is set aside. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- is maintained. In case of default in payment of fine the Applicant shall undergo three months' R.I. The Applicant is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds. The Applicant is allowed two months' time from the date the record is received by the trial court to deposit the amount of fine.