JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Prem Chand has preferred this revision against the judgment dated September, 1972 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3 Jaipur passed in criminal appeal No. 11 of 1972 maintaining the conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafier referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing the petitioner to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months passed by the learned Municipal Magistrate, No. 3, Jaipur City in criminal case No. 427 of 1970. 2. The brief facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution, are that on 20.8.1969 the Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner and found the petitioner selling, among other things, oils filled in various containers which were put on the counter. The Food Inspector purchased 375 gms. of til oil for Rs. 3.75 p and sent it to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. On examination the Chemical Examiner found the sample of oil to be adulterated one. A complaint was, therefore, submitted by the Food Inspector against the petitioner for the offence under section 7/16 of the Act. 3. After trial, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above. An appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur City was dismissed. Hence this revision petition. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record of the case. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the residue of the oils left at the bottom of the tin which normally cannot be sold is put in a separate open container. It contained a mixture of coconut oil, sesdme oil, ground-nut oil i.e. all kinds of edible oils sold by the petitioner, and it was this container from which the sample was taken. This residue of oil was not meant for sale. This container containing the residue of oils was not at the counter but was separately kept. The petitioner was all along protesting that this particular tin contained residue of all the various kinds of edible oils and is not kept there for sale. This residue of oil was not meant for sale. This container containing the residue of oils was not at the counter but was separately kept. The petitioner was all along protesting that this particular tin contained residue of all the various kinds of edible oils and is not kept there for sale. But the Food Inspector knowing it well that the petitioner was not selling the oil from this container, forced the petitioner to give 375 gms. oil from the said container. In the seizure memo prepared by the Food Inspector the petitioner had put a note to the effect that this oil was not meant for sale but the Food Inspector by his own pen struck off the line written by the petitioner. It has been further contended that from the Chemical Analyser's report B. R. reading is 57.9, while according to the formula it should be 58. Thus there was a difference of which can be a difference of little calculation. The only difference came in the iodine value which was 100.7 in the sample while it should have been 105 according to the prescribed standard and the turbidity temperature was 280C. which was more than 220C. This difference in the iodine value and the value attached to be bier test may be due to some portion of the oil being ground-nut oil. There was no reason for the petitioner to mix the til oil with ground-nut oil. This also goes to show that the oil from which the sample was taken was not meant for sale. He also urged that even if it was adulterated, it was a technical offence and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is a harsh one. 5. It has been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that this contention that the oil from which the sample was taken was not meant for sale, was also taken before the trial court as well as the appellate court and both the courts below have held that the oil from which the sample was taken was meant for sale. There is the concurrent finding of both the courts below and it has not been established that this finding is perverse, therefore, no question arises for interference with the finding of both the courts below on this fact in the revision. There is the concurrent finding of both the courts below and it has not been established that this finding is perverse, therefore, no question arises for interference with the finding of both the courts below on this fact in the revision. The petitioner however sold the oil as sample to the Food Inspector and, therefore, it is a sale in view of the definition of 'sale' in the Act. It is also no ground that there might have been some part of coconut oil in the sample which was taken of til oil. Anyhow it amounts to adulteration. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. As regards the contention of the learned counsel that the oil from which the sample was taken was not meant for sale it may be said that it is a finding of fact and both the courts below have come to the conclusion, on the basis of record, that it was meant for sale. I see no reason to differ from their finding on this score. It may also be said that the Act itself gives a specific demotion of sale in Section 2 (xiii) which specifically includes within its ambits the sale for analysis. A sale for analysis to the Food Inspector must be regarded as sale even if the transaction captains an element of compulsion. The case of Mangal das v. Maharadura State 1976 (I) FAC 43 is a clear authority on this point. Therefore, I am unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. As regards the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is clear that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed. To this effect is the report of the Public Analyst. It is immaterial whether butter oil or ground-nut oil was mixed in the til oil. If the sample does not conform to the prescribed standard, it will be treated as adulterated and the petitioner shall be deemed to be an offender in law. However, this factor may be taken into consideration while awarding the sentence to the petitioner. 8. As regards the sentence it may be said that besides the above factor the alleged occurrence is of 20-8-1969 i.e. more than 7 years. However, this factor may be taken into consideration while awarding the sentence to the petitioner. 8. As regards the sentence it may be said that besides the above factor the alleged occurrence is of 20-8-1969 i.e. more than 7 years. During this long period the petitioner had faced protracted criminal proceedings and, therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice to send him to jail. In Ghanshyam Das v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1974 FAC 422 it was observed that as the matter pertains to the year 1965 and as the appellant had to face protracted criminal proceedings.it would not seem proper to send the appellant to jail. In that case however the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act was given to the accused. In State v. Badri 1965 R L.W 178 a Division Bench of this Court reduced the sentence from one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- to imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case I think it proper that a lenient view in the matter of sentence may be taken. 9. In the result the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is maintained but the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced from six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- to imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1000/, in default of payment of fine the petitioner shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Two months' time is allowed to deposit the fine.Petition partly allowed. *******