JUDGMENT - N.D. KAMAT, J.:---This revision application arises out of prosecution for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. At Jalna, there is a partnership firm doing grocery business under the name and style of Nanikram Narayandas Kirana Merchant. The first petitioner Ishwardas, who was accused No. 1 in the lower Court, is a partner and the second petitioner Madhavdas, who was accused No. 5 in the lower Court, is an employee of this partnership firm. On 29th May, 1973, at about 3.20 p.m., Food Inspector Narwane visited this grocery shop along with a panch. The second petitioner was present in the shop at that time. Mr. Narwane found about 50 Kgs. of Dal in a gunny bag and he purchased 750 grams of Dal from that gunny bag from accused No. 5 for analysis on payment of Rs. 1.12 p. as the price. The usual procedure was then followed and one of the sealed packets was sent to the Public Analyst for Analysis. The Public Analyst sent a report that the sample Dal sent to him for analysis was Lakh Dal and it was misbranded under section 2(ix)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The necessary sanction to prosecute the accused was then obtained and the accused came to be prosecuted for offences under section 16(1)(a)(i) and section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with section 7(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Both the accused denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. They put forth a plea that the Dal, which was sold to the Food Inspector, was inferior Dal to be used as cattle feed and they had not committed any offence by selling that Dal. The learned trial Magistrate rejected the above contention of the defence, held both the accused guilty and convicted both of them under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(ii) and section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(iv) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced them each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each of the two counts; but directed that the substantive sentences on both the counts should run concurrently. The convictions recorded and the sentences of imprisonment and fine imposed by the learned trial Magistrate was confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Aurangabad. 1,000/- on each of the two counts; but directed that the substantive sentences on both the counts should run concurrently. The convictions recorded and the sentences of imprisonment and fine imposed by the learned trial Magistrate was confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Aurangabad. The petitioners-accused have thereupon come up in revision to this Court. Mr. Mengde, learned Counsel for the petitioners-accused, did not seek to challenge the report of the Public Analyst that the sample Dal sent to him for analysis was Lakh Dal. He also fairly conceded that with effect from 27th June, 1969 there is a total ban on the sale of Lakh Dal in the State of Maharashtra for any purpose. There can, therefore, be no doubt whatever that by selling Lakh Dal to the Food Inspector, the petitioners-accused have contravened the provisions of Rule 44-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Mr. Mengde, however, strenuously urged that for contravention of the provisions of Rule 44-A the petitioners-accused could be held to be guilty for the offence under section 16(1)(a)(ii) and not under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In this connection, he strongly sought to rely upon Mr. Narwanes admission in the cross-examination that pointing out to the gunny bag containing 50 Kgs. of Dal, he asked for 750 grams of that Dal for analysis and also on the fact that the panch witness, who had accompanied the Food Inspector, had clearly admitted in his cross-examination that the gunny bag containing that Dal bore a label saying that it was inferior Dal meant to be used only as cattle feed. In the words, Mr. Mengdes argument was that accused No. 5 did not sell the article in question as Tur Dal or as any other article of food but as an article other than the one referred to in section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. This submission made by Mr. Mengde undoubtedly derives some support; firstly from the aforementioned admission given by the panch witness and secondly from the price paid by the Food Inspector for those 750 grams of Dal. Price of Tur Dal could not ordinarily be less than about Rs. 2.50 or Rs. 3.00 per kg. and the very fact that 750 grams of Dal were sold for only Rs. Price of Tur Dal could not ordinarily be less than about Rs. 2.50 or Rs. 3.00 per kg. and the very fact that 750 grams of Dal were sold for only Rs. 1.12 P. is an indication that what the panch has stated in his evidence may not be untrue. If that Dal was sold not as Tur Dal but only Lakh Dal, fit for being used as only cattle feed, the as petitioners-accused cannot be held to have sold an article of food which is misbranded within the meaning of that expression in section 2(ix)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. But all the same, sale of Lakh Dal having been totally band in this State, the petitioners-accused would be guilty under section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with section 7(iv) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for having sold Lakh Dal, sale of which is totally prohibited. In this view of the matter, the conviction of the petitioners-accused under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, will have to be set aside and they will have to be acquitted of this charge. As regards the sentence, the total quantity of Lakh Dal found in the grocery shop of the petitioners-accused was about 50 Kgs. only. Sale of Lakh Dal as cattle feed was at one time permitted in the State and it is not unlikely that the petitioners-accused were ignorant of the total ban imposed on the sale of such Dal since 1969. Mr. Mengde further made a statement at the Bar that the partnership firm has now been closed and the petitioner-accused have been earning their livelihood by taking employment elsewhere. Both the petitioners-accused have already undergone imprisonment in jail for a few days before they were enlarged on bail. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances of the case, I think that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners-accused is reduced to the period already undergone. Hence the following order. ORDER The revision application is partly allowed. The convictions recorded and the sentences of imprisonment and fine imposed on the petitioners-accused by the courts below are set aside. Hence the following order. ORDER The revision application is partly allowed. The convictions recorded and the sentences of imprisonment and fine imposed on the petitioners-accused by the courts below are set aside. Both the petitioners-accused are hereby convicted under section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with section 7(iv) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and each of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Rule is made partly absolute. The amounts of fine to be paid within four weeks from today. -----