JUDGMENT - BHOLE, J.:---Three cases were filed by Food Inspector, Kolhapur B.L. Patil against the three accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur. The first accused is the father and the second and the third are his sons. They are alleged to have sold to the Food Inspector on 21-11-1972 from their shop known as "M/s. D.D. Shete and sons Mug Dal, Tur Dal and chilly powder. As usual the Food Inspector divided each of these samples into three parts and gave one part of each of the samples to the third accused, who was then present in the shop. The samples were sent to the Public Analyst at Poona and his report was that each of the samples of Mug Dal and Tur Dal contained metanil yellow coal tar dye and chilly powder contained extraneous tar die. All the three accused, therefore, were prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and charged with the offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) read with section 7(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. All the three criminal cases were consolidated and the accused were tried in one case. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The first and the second accused contended that they were not in the shop at the time when the Food Inspector visited it and said that they were not looking after the affairs of the shop. The third accused who is the revision petitioner here admitted his presence in the shop at the time when the Food Inspector visited it and admitted having sold the goods. He admitted also having received the samples of each of the articles from the Food Inspector. 2. The learned Magistrate after trying the accused found all the three accused guilty of the offence with which each of them was charged and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. This order of conviction and sentence was challenged by the accused and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge agreed with the finding of the trial Court in so far as the third accused is concerned, but differed in so far as the first and the second accused are concerned. In that view of the matter he acquitted the first and the second accused but confirmed the order of conviction and sentence of the third accused. Sessions Judge agreed with the finding of the trial Court in so far as the third accused is concerned, but differed in so far as the first and the second accused are concerned. In that view of the matter he acquitted the first and the second accused but confirmed the order of conviction and sentence of the third accused. That order of conviction is now challenged here by the third accused. The point therefore, that arises here for consideration is whether that order is legal and proper. 3. So far as the finding of fact is concerned, both the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court did not believe the evidence produced by the accused about the warranty in the shape of the bills. The case of the accused was that the chilly powder was purchased from one Salgaonkar and that he had given a warranty by his bill which he produced. Their further case was that they purchased Mug Dal from one Bapusaheb Mahajan and Tur dal from one Nasthe. They produced the receipts of these three dealers but both the courts below for food reasons did not rely on the receipts. Mr. Ganatra, the learned Advocate for the petitioner again raises the issue of warranty and contends here that both the lower courts have improperly decided the question of warranty. It is his case that the petitioner had purchased these articles from other dealers and they should be held responsible for adulteration which was found by the public analyst. It is true, as argued by Mr. Ganatra that under section 19 of the Adulteration Act a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of an adulterated article, if he proves that he purchased the article of food in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof, from a licensed manufacturer, distributor or a dealer and in any other case from any manufacturer, distributor or a dealer with a written warranty. In fact the licence was not at all produced by these dealers, who were examined by the defence in the trial Court. They were first produced in appeal in the Sessions Court. The bills, however, were produced during the course of the trial but the bills were not accepted by both the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge. They were first produced in appeal in the Sessions Court. The bills, however, were produced during the course of the trial but the bills were not accepted by both the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge. The finding of fact, therefore, of both the courts is that the accused has not proved that he purchased the adulterated articles of food with a written warranty in a prescribed form. It would, therefore, be difficult for me to interfere with these findings of fact. 4. In so far as the bill given for chilly powder is concerned, it had a guarantee which the witness did not know. The signature under the English endorsement also is different from the writing of the bill, which the witness says was his. From a look at the bill it is clear that the vernacular writing in the bill is different from the writing of the signature. The English warranty was also not there when the bill was given by the witness to the accused. About the other bill regarding the Mug Dal, the Munim who had signed the bill was not examined by the accused. Figure "O" also appears to have been tampered. About the receipt regarding Tur Dal the witness did not produce any copies of the bill. In fact the copies of the three bills are not produced at all by the three witnesses who were asked to come along with the copies of the bill issued by them. They had also not come with any books of account. All this evidence, therefore, was rightly rejected by the two courts below. 5. Mr. Ganatra contends here that the Food Inspector did not follow the provisions under Rules 17, 18 and 7 of the Food Adulteration Act. These rules are regarding sending of the sealed packed of the samples with a memorandum in Form No. 7 by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst. Under Rule 17 the container of the sample shall be sent to the Public Analyst by registered post in a sealed packet enclosed with a memorandum in Form No. 7 in an outer cover addressed to the Public Analyst. Under Rule 18 a copy of the memorandum and the specimen impressions of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent to the public Analyst separately by registered post. Under Rule 18 a copy of the memorandum and the specimen impressions of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent to the public Analyst separately by registered post. The Public Analyst under Rule 7 has to compare the seals on the containers and the outer cover with the specimen impressions received separately and note the conditions of the seals thereon. It is the contention of Mr. Ganatra that these provisions were not adhered to. These contentions were also rejected by both the courts below and I do not see any substance in this contention also. The report of the Public Analyst also clearly shows that the specimen seal along with form No. 7 was in a separate packet and the sample along with form No. 7 was in a separate packet. Mr. Ganatras contention is based on the evidence of the Food Inspector who said that one of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst with a memorandum as prescribed in Form No. 7 but he also said that the memorandum accompanied with the separate specimen seal of his office was also sent. In the cross-examination he said that the samples were sent with their peon and that he had sent the specimen seal along with form No. 7 in a separate packet with the same peon. Mr. Ganatra interprets this to me and says that the Food Inspector admitted having sent the samples as well as the specimen seal and the memorandum together. I do not think the evidence of the Food Inspector can be interpreted in that way. Both the courts, therefore, in my view have rightly come to the conclusion that the Food Inspector did send the samples along with the memorandum and the seal as provided under Rules 17, 18 and 7 and this can also be seen from the report of the Public Analyst. I do no, therefore, think that there is any substance in this contention. 6. Mr. Ganatra then argues on the question of sentence and says that the petitioner was a student and had appeared externally for B.Com, examination; that he had also undergone an operation of piles and that he should be given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. 6. Mr. Ganatra then argues on the question of sentence and says that the petitioner was a student and had appeared externally for B.Com, examination; that he had also undergone an operation of piles and that he should be given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is difficult for me to accept this request because the offences under the Food Adulteration Act are serious offences, which are against the Society and therefore the Parliament have in their wisdom laid down the minimum sentence which has been inflicted on the petitioner. After all adulteration of a food article is a serious matter and it is an antisocial offence against the Society by the traders, who are as bad as, if not more, any other criminals who indulge in other serious offences. It would, therefore, be difficult for me to accept this request of Mr. Ganatra. The sentence inflicted by the courts below is the minimum sentence provided under the Act and therefore that has to be confirmed. 7. This revision application, therefore, fails. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is confirmed. Rule discharged. Accused to surrender to his bail. -----