JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, dated March 7, 1972, affirming the judgment dated November 4, 1969, of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Salumber, whereby he convicted the accused-petitioner under Section 7/16, of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, No. XXXVII of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 900/- in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution story, in a nut shell is that on February 16, 1968 PW. 1 , Food Inspector Inspected and checked the shop of the accused petitioner. Having disclosed his identity to the accused-petitioner the Inspector served him with a notice in Form No. VI (Ex. P1) and purchased 375 Grams of mustard oil for Rs. 187 paisa. The oil was divided into three parts. Each part was then filled in a bottle. All the three bottle were sealed in the presence of the petitioner. A memorandum containing the details of the action taken by the Food Inspector was prepared and has been marked Ex. P 2. It bears the signatures of Food Inspector PW. 1 , as those of the two attesting witnesses Devilal and Sohanlal. It also bears the signatures of the accused-petitioner Champa Lal Jain. One sample bottle was given to the accused-petitioner and the other was sent to the Public Analyst at Udaipur along with a specimen of the seal impression. The form containing the specimen seal is Ex. P3. The third bottle was retained by the Food Inspector. The sealed bottle was received by the Public Analyst on February 20, 1968. The Public Analyst received the bottle for analysis properly sealed and fastened and the seal was noticed by him to be in (sic), unbroken, and similar to the seal impression given on the memorandum. An endorsement to that effect has been made by the Public Analyst in Ex. P4. He analysed the contents of the bottle and declared the result as under: "This oil is clear and free from rancidity, foreign matter, added colouring substance and mineral oil: B.R. Reading at 49oc ... 58.0 B.R. Readin ... 58.0 Iodine value ... 96.5 Saponfication value ... 170.2 Free fatty acids as oleic acid ... 4.12% Unsa onifiable matter ... 0.54% Fellurs Tast (Turbidity Temperature) ... 58.0 B.R. Readin ... 58.0 Iodine value ... 96.5 Saponfication value ... 170.2 Free fatty acids as oleic acid ... 4.12% Unsa onifiable matter ... 0.54% Fellurs Tast (Turbidity Temperature) ... 24.1%C Sesame oil Test ... Positive Argemone Oil Test ... Negative 3. In the opinion of the Public Analyst the sample if the oil was adulterated, as it did not conform to standard of purity prescribed by the Prevention or Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules'). The free fatty acid calculated as oleic was 4.15 %, the prescribed maximum for that oil being 3%. The Food Inspector filed a complaint in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate. Salumber, against the accused petitioner for his prosecution under Section 7/16 of the Act. The accused denied his complicity in the crime. The prosecution in support of their case examined two witnesses PW. 1 , the Food Inspector, and PW. 2 Sohanlal. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. stated that the oil from which the sample was purchased by the Food Inspector was not kept on his shop for sale, it was for his personal use and he had brought it from his kitchen & had given the same to the Food Inspector. He examined two witnesses viz. DW. 1 Nihalchand and DW. 2 Champalal. The trial court, relying upon the testimony of PW. 1 , PW. 2 Sohanlal and Ex. P2 sought support of the prosecution case from the statement of DW. 2 Champalal, who in his cross-examination that that at times Champalal, accused, used to bring the goods from his kitchen and sell it to the customers. The trial court held that the mustard oil sold by the accused petitioner to the Food Inspector was adulterated and the same was kept for sale on his shop. The learned Magistrate found the accused petitioner guilty of the offence punished under Section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him as mentioned above. The aggrieved accused took an appeal again t the above verdict in the Court of Sessions judge, Udaipur, who by his judgment dated March 7, 1972, upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. 4. Dissatisfied with the above judgment, Champalal, the accused petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 5. The aggrieved accused took an appeal again t the above verdict in the Court of Sessions judge, Udaipur, who by his judgment dated March 7, 1972, upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. 4. Dissatisfied with the above judgment, Champalal, the accused petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 5. The learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner has pleaded that whereas the sample of the oil was taken on February 16, 1968, the Public Analyst analysed it as late as February 27, 1968. The compliance of Rules 14 and 16 of the Rules was not made by the Food Inspector PW. 1 inasmuch as he, in his statement, recorded by the trial court, did not state that the sample of mustard oil was filed in clean dry bottles, and that the coppers to toe bottles were securely fastened. It has also not been stated that the bottles were wrapped in thick papers and the ends of the papers were neatly folded and affixed by means of gum or some other adhesive, and that they were tied with thread in the manner provided by Rule 16 of the Rules. The Public Analyst found that the free fatty acid calculated as oleic was 4.5%, the prescribed maximum for that oil being only 3%. The microscopic increase in the free fatty acid contents should be attributed to exposure of sample to light and air during the interval of time between the taking of the sample and its analysis. Moreover, edible oils, are liable to increase in free fatty acid. The learned Counsel urged that owing to the above mentioned circumstances the report of the Public Analyst Ex. P4 cannot be taken as a sure indication of the acid contentions of the oil at the time of taking the sample, in any case a reasonable doubt does arise regarding the acid contents of the oil at the time of taking the sample. In support of the above contention, reliance was placed on In R.K. Chandran AIR 1965 Mad 168 . 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner, and do not feel persuaded to agree with his contentions. 7. Agreed that PW. 1 , Food Inspector, did not narrate all the details regarding the manner of packing, sealing, and fending of the sample for analysis. But a close reading of statement of PW. 7. Agreed that PW. 1 , Food Inspector, did not narrate all the details regarding the manner of packing, sealing, and fending of the sample for analysis. But a close reading of statement of PW. 1 along with the report of the Public Analyst Ex. P4 reveals that the bottles in which the sample of the mustard oil was filled in were sealed on the spot in the presence of the Motbirs The Public Analyst received the sample bottle properly sealed and fastened. He noticed that the seals were in tact and unbroken, and similar to the seal impression on the memorandum Ex. P.3 received by him separately. Though PW. 1 , Food Inspector, was cross examined at a consider-able length, but the whole of the cross examination was directed towards showing that the mustard oil out of which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector was not for sale, but only for the personal consumption of the vendor (accused petitioner). No question was put to him to suggest that the petitioner wanted to raise a controversy regarding the dryness of the bottles in which the sample of the mustard oil was filled in It was also not suggested in cross-examination that the bottles containing the sample of the mustard oil were not properly wrapped, tied with thread and that they were exposed to air and sun. It was for the accused petitioner to prove that the packing was inadequate or to defective that it could not have prevented light and air affecting the sample of oil contained in the bottles. The Food Inspector while packing and sealing the sample is required under Rule 14 to take the sample in a dry and clean container and close it sufficiently tight. Under Rule 14, he is further required so fasten the stopper, seal and pack it He is also required to wrap it in thick paper and comply with the directions given in Rule 1. The Food Inspector PW. 1 while taking the sample, was performing an official act and it can be safely presumed under Illustration (e) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the Food Inspector performed the duties regularly and that be acted in accordance with the rules. Reference may be made to Kassim Kunju Pookuju and Anr. v. K.K. Ramakrishna Pillai and Anr. 1 while taking the sample, was performing an official act and it can be safely presumed under Illustration (e) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the Food Inspector performed the duties regularly and that be acted in accordance with the rules. Reference may be made to Kassim Kunju Pookuju and Anr. v. K.K. Ramakrishna Pillai and Anr. 1969 (2) CAR 15 In this case their Lordships of the Supreme Court repelling the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner of that case regarding non compliance of Rules 7 and 18 of the rules observed as under: "The only point of any substance which has been pressed before us by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the rules framed under the Act bad not been complied with in as much as it has not been proved that the specimen impression of the seal used had been sect to the Public Analyst Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 provides that a copy of the Memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent to the public analyst separately by post. The High Court was not at all impressed with the contention based on Rule 18 Ex. P 9 which was in Form III as prescribed by the Rules in which it was stated, inter' alia, that the Public Analyst had received from the Food Inspector a sample of compounded miskly asafoctida marked No. C 2/65 for analysis, properly sealed and packed and that he had found the seal intact and unbroken. The contention which was pressed and which has been reiterated before us is that it is nowhere stated in Ex. P 9 that the Public Analyst had compared that specimen impression of the seal with the seal on the packet of the sample. The High Court relied on the principle that official acts must be presumed to have been regularly performed. Under Rule 7 the Public Analyst has to compare the seal on the container and the outer cover with the specimen impression received separately on receipt of the packet containing the sample for the analysis. The High Court considered that it must be presumed that the Public Analyst acted in accordance with the Rules and he must have compared the specimen impression received by him with the seal on the container. The High Court considered that it must be presumed that the Public Analyst acted in accordance with the Rules and he must have compared the specimen impression received by him with the seal on the container. We do not find any error in the decision of the High Court on the above point. 8. The presumption which arises under Illustration (e) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act is rebuttable, but the accused petitioner has failed to do it. Neither in cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses nor in arguments before the trial court or the appellate court it was contended that the bottles containing the sample were not properly packed or fastened or that that the sample bottle sent to the Public Analyst for analysis was exposed to air and sun. Now it is too late in the day for him to raise this controversy. If the accused really wanted to rely upon the defect of racking of the sample bottle, he ought to have produced his own bottle, and cross examined the Food Inspector PW. 1 regarding the defects in packing. Since he did nothing of the sort, at the right time it only mans that it is his after thought. 9. The proper packing of bottles containing the sample of mustard oil is a question of fact, as also of accepting the evidence furnished by the prosecution regarding proper compliance of the Rules. But the jurisdiction of this Court in criminal revision petitions is severely restricted, and it cannot embark upon re-appreciation of the evidence. The learned Counsel for the accused petitioner has failed to point out any cogent reason to hold that the compliance of Rules 14 and 16 was not made in the case on hand. 10. As regards delay in analysing the sample, it would suffice to say that there is nothing on the record to hold that the bottle containing the sample of mustard oil was exposed to sunlight or air and as such it cannot beheld that the increase in free fatty acid in the sample of the mustard oil was due to delay in analysing the sample. 11. 11. It will not be out of place to mention here that if the petitioner really wanted to rely upon the effect of delay in, examination of the sample by the Public Analyst, be ought to have made an application in the trial court with a view to summoning the Public Analyst for cross examination, and contained him with the, opinions of the various authorities on the subject to support his case. Without his raving done it, the report of the Public Analyst can no the discarded, and more so, because the passages cited later, were never brought to his notice Even otherwise, they cannot be relied on, since the case on hand is coveted therein Acceptance of the contention of the harried counsel for the accused petitioner regarding the possibility of the bottle containing the sample being exposed to sun light and sir leading to the increase of free fatty acid in the absence, of proper evidence on the record will amount to chasing bare possibilities of doubt. Neither mere possibilities nor mere doubts which are pot reasonable can without danger to the administration of justice, bi the foundation for discarding the report of the Public Analyst. The case In R.K. Chandran AIR 1965 Mad 168 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused petitioner is of no avail to the petitioner. In that case, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court repelling a similar argument as advanced before me observed as under: "It cannot, therefore, be stated that the keeping up of oil for any parts ocular period of time would, by itself, be subject to deter ruination in the sense that its free fatty content is increased. Such an increase of fatty content will come about only if there be an exposure of the oil to light and air, If therefore, at the time of taking the samples, the oil has been perfectly packed, there would be little chance of such decomposition, of the oil in the sample bottle. 12. On the proved facts of the case on band, I find no reason to reverse the finding arrived at by the two courts below and therefore hold on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence that the sample of the mustard oil purchased by the Food Inspector PW 1 Bhanwar Lal from the accused petitioner on February 16, 1068 was adulterated. 13. 13. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the presence of oleic in the mustard oil in excess of the permitted limit was microscopic viz. 1.15 and that it could be the result of a margins' error committed by the Public Analyst white analysing the sample his no legs to stand on. The presence of one of the constituents of the mustard oil in exceeds of the quantity prescribed makes the article adulterated according to the definition of the term "adulterated" provided in Section 2(1)(i). Thus when the prescribed standard is not attained, the provision of the Act treads the article of food as an adulterated one. In my opinion it is beyond the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to embark on an academic discussion whether the variation found in the case on band is microscopic or no'. The standard fixed under the Act is one that is certain If it is varied to any extent, the certainty of a general standard would b; replaced by the vagaries of a fluctuation standard. The disadvantage of resulting unpredictability, uncertainty and impossibility of arriving at fair and consistent decision are great. 14. Now remains the question of the sentence imposed upon him. The learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner has urged that the incident giving rise to the case is of the year 1968 and a period of 8 years has already elapsed between the commission of the offence and the hearing of this revision petition. Since the sample taken from the accused-petitioner confirmed with all the particulars prescribed except as regards free fatty acid and there also the deviation was only of 1.15%, the benefit of the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act may be extended to the accused petitioner or a nominal sentence of fine may be imposed. 15. It must be remembered that adulteration is an economic offence prompted by a profit motive and it is not likely to lend itself easily to the rape tic treatment by the probationary measure. The food adulterators are a social risk and the imperative of social advance must discourage the application of probation principles or allowing benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to them. The food adulterators are a social risk and the imperative of social advance must discourage the application of probation principles or allowing benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to them. No leniency must need be shown to those who indulge in antisocial activities and thus jeopardise the health of numerous customers The adulteration of food and drugs deserves little sympathy and such offenders must not be permitted to take advantage of provisions intended to tamper justice with mercy. 16. The question of extending the benefit of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to the offenders under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Isher Das v. State of Punjab AIR 1972 SC 129 . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down the law as under: "Adulteration of food is a menace to public health. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been enacted with the aim of eradicating that anti social evil and for ensuring purify in the articles of food. In view of the above object of the Act and the intention of the legislature as revealed by the fact that a minimum sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of rupees one thousand has been prescribed, the courts should not lightly retort to the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in the case of persons above 21 years of age found guilty of offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 17. The Law Commission also had in its 47th Report recommended the exclusion of the applicability of probationary process in the case of social and economic offences. The accused petitioner was of 45 years of age on the date of the commission of the offence in 1968. Extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to him will be nothing short of cruel kindness. A person indulging in adulteration of food is a parasite to the Society. He cannot be said to be a respectable in any sense. The case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner. Supreme Court in Isher Das v. State of Punjab AIR 1972 SC 129 is totally distinguishable on the facts of this case. 18. A person indulging in adulteration of food is a parasite to the Society. He cannot be said to be a respectable in any sense. The case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner. Supreme Court in Isher Das v. State of Punjab AIR 1972 SC 129 is totally distinguishable on the facts of this case. 18. As regards imposition of nominal penalty of fine it would suffice to say that the legislature while amending the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in 1964 provided a minimum sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment, and a fine of L 1000/ for selling adulterated food. This is an expression of rigorous indignation of the community against the offences of this kind with the object of preserving and promoting the well-being of human society. A relaxation from the rigour of the minimum is permitted only for special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment Such reasons are required to be adequate and sufficiently weighty. The Court his to further express those reasons in the judgment enabling the superior courts and the society to know the grounds for the grant of indulgence. The court while awarding punishment his to seriously consider the command of the law and the ambit of the judicial discretion conferred by it. It is plain that the object of providing a minimum substantive sentence and substantial pecuniary punishment is to discourage and deter anti social elements in the society who motivated by avarice cause incalculable harm to harm to human health. 19. In the Municipal Counsel, Jaipur v. Sitaram 1975 WLN 792 after referring to almost ail the cases decided by this Court, regarding quantum of punishment, relating to the offenders under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, I have held, as under: "A proviso has to be considered in relation to the main enactment and should not be permitted to obliterate or swallow the enactment itself. In my view, therefore, the proviso cannot be assigned a scope and purpose not contemplated by the main enactment and must always be construed harmoniously with the main enactment. A proviso will not be normally construed as reducing the purview of an enactment to nullity. No legislature will at the same time give something by one hand and take back the same thing by another. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been enacted with the aim of eradicating this anti social evil. A proviso will not be normally construed as reducing the purview of an enactment to nullity. No legislature will at the same time give something by one hand and take back the same thing by another. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been enacted with the aim of eradicating this anti social evil. In a particular case the adulteration may pinch one individual in a small measure But the adulterator spreads his not wider, and the totality of the gain that be makes becomes enormous when one takes into reckoning the fact that the act is repeated several times a day, and goes on doing so till he is detected, but by then also ammasses wealth enough to pay any amount of fine and has imperilled the health of a large number of persons by providing them with un wholesome food deficient in nutrition. It could never have been intended by the legislature considering the general trend of the enactment that the offender whose case was covered by the proviso could be given the facility to escape with fine alone. The language of the proviso to Section 16 is apt to meet the three possible contingencies mentioned above. "On the aforesaid analysis, I am clearly of the opinion that even under the proviso the sentence of imprisonment and fine is binding. The proviso makes, provision for reduction of sentence for adequate and special reasons. It does not, however, make the sentence disconjunctive. The conjunctive part of the section remains unaffected. 20. In P.K. Tejani v. M.R. Langa AIR 1974 SC 228 his Lordships Krishna Iyer J. speaking for the Court, regarding the quantum of sentence in such cases, observed as under; "The learned Magistrate, we are constrained to observe, has completely, failed to appreciate the gravity of food offence when he imposed a naively negligible sentence of one hundred rupees fine. In a country where consumerism as a movement has not developed, the common man is at the mercy of the vicious dealer. And when the primary necessaries of life are sold with spurious admixtures for making profit, his only protection is the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Court. If offenders can get a way with it by payment of trivial fine, as in the present case, it brings the law into contempt and its enforcement to mockery. 21. And when the primary necessaries of life are sold with spurious admixtures for making profit, his only protection is the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Court. If offenders can get a way with it by payment of trivial fine, as in the present case, it brings the law into contempt and its enforcement to mockery. 21. The offence committed by the petitioner was under Sub-clause (i), of Clause (a) of Section 16(1) of the Act and with respect to an article of food which was adulterated under Sub-clause (i) of Section 2 of the Act. The proviso to Section 16 of the Act is, therefore, applicable. The offence is alleged to have been committed in February 1968. We are in the year 1976 A.D. A period of nearly eight years has elapsed in between It has been urged that the accused petitioner is an old man with ill-health and has given up the business which he was doing uptil now. 22. After taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, I uphold the conviction of the accused-petitioner Champa Lal under Section 7/16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but reduce his sentence from six month's rigorous imprisonment to a period of three months only. However, the sentence of fine of Rs. 900/- (Rupees Nine Hundred) awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is maintained. The accused-petitioner is on bail. He is not before me. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, will take necessary steps for the arrest of the accused-petitioner Cnampalal and send him to jail to undergo the remaining period of sentence awarded by this Court. He shall also report compliance. 23. This revision petition is party allowed as indicated above. 24. The learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner prays for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The decision of this case as turned on facts and the position of law which. I have set out is well settled It is one of the routine cases, and no question of general importance is involved herein. There is, therefore, no reason to certify that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court of India. *******