JUDGMENT G.D. Srivastava, J. - This revision has arisen out of a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (to be referred hereinafter as the Act). 2. On 10-8-71 the applicant was found selling Kulfis on his Thela. The Food Inspector purchased 900 gms. of Kulfi by way of sample from him on payment of Re. 1-80 p. against receipt Ex. Ka-2. The Kulfi so purchased was divided in three parts and each part was kept and sealed in a separate phial in accordance with law. The applicant was given one phial, another was sent to the Public Analyst, and the third was retained in the office of the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari. The Public Analyst found the sample to be deficient in milk fat, total solids and protein contents. Me also found the sample to contain saccharine and starch, the use of which was prohibited in food-stuffs. The applicant was accordingly sent up to stand his trial under section 7/16 of the Act. He was convicted by the Magistrate and was sentenced to an imprisonment of six months' R.I. and a line of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo a further imprisonment of six months' R.I. The applicant preferred an appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Agra. The learned Sessions Judge maintained his conviction, but reduced his sentence from six months' R.I. to the period already undergone. The fine of Rs. 1,000/- was, however, maintained. 3. The applicant felt aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, and he, therefore, came up in revision to this Court. 4. When the case came up for hearing, a learned judge of this Court felt that the sentence which had been awarded to the applicant was inadequate and he, therefore, issued a notice for enhancement of sentence. It is in this way that we are seized of this case. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant at sufficient length and -after doing so we do not think that this revision has any merit behind it. The applicant had admitted that sample of Kulfi had been taken from him by the Food Inspector. His contention, however, was that he had not been selling Kulfts of which sample had been taken, but he had been bringing them from one Om Parkash, who lived on the other side of river Yamuna. The applicant had admitted that sample of Kulfi had been taken from him by the Food Inspector. His contention, however, was that he had not been selling Kulfts of which sample had been taken, but he had been bringing them from one Om Parkash, who lived on the other side of river Yamuna. He even examined some witnesses in support of his case. Those witnesses were not believed by the courts below. The courts below acting upon the evidence led by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the applicant had been selling Kulfts and the Food Inspector had taken sample from him after paying its price. The appraisal of evidence done by the courts below is correct and we see no reason to disagree with the finding arrived at by them. It thus stands proved that the applicant had, in fact, been selling Kulfi and that Kulfi on analysis was found to contain prohibited articles like saccharine and starch. He was, therefore, rightly convicted under section 7/16 of the Act. 6. Now the question is whether the sentence which had been awarded to the applicant was in accordance with law or not. In our opinion, it was not. By selling Kulfi containing saccharine and starch, the applicant had committed an offence under section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Act. He was, therefore, rightly convicted under section 7/16 of the Act. 6. Now the question is whether the sentence which had been awarded to the applicant was in accordance with law or not. In our opinion, it was not. By selling Kulfi containing saccharine and starch, the applicant had committed an offence under section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Act. Section 16 of the Act runs as follows : - "16 Penalties : - (1) If any person (a) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food - (i) which is adulterated or misbranded or the sale of which is prohibited by the Food (Health) Authority in the interest of public health; (ii) other than an article of food referred to in sub-clause (i), in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder; or (b) prevents a Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorised by this Act; or (c) prevents a Food Inspector from exercising any other power conferred on him by or under this Act; or (d) being a manufacturer of an article of food, has in his possession, or in any of the premises occupied by him, any material which may be employed for the purposes of adulteration; or (e) uses any report or certificate of a test or analysis made by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory or by a Public Analyst or any extract thereof for the purpose of advertising any article of food; or (f) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf gives to the vendor a false warranty in writing in respect of any article of food sold by him; he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to sir years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees: Provided that - (i) if the offence is under sub-clause (f) of clause (a) and is with respect to an article of food which is adulterated under sub-clause (I) of clause (ix) of that section; or (ii) if the offence is under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six monies or of line less than one thousand rupees or of both imprisonment for a term of less than six months and fine of less than one thousand rupees." It will be evident from the provisions of the above section that if any person sells any article of food which is "adulterated", he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to six years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. In other words, the minimum sentence prescribed for an offence of the aforesaid nature is six months' imprisonment and fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. The provisions of section 16 of the Act are very explicit and do not leave any discretion in the Court to depart from the same in the matter of deciding the penalty to be imposed upon an offender. Proviso to section 16 of the Act contemplated certain exceptions to the minimum statutory punishment. Obviously, therefore, if the case is covered by the various clauses of the proviso, the Court has a discretion to impose a lesser sentence than the minimum prescribed. However, if the case is not covered by the proviso, then no option is left to the Court but to impose a sentence not less than six months' R.I. and a fine of rupees one thousand. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the case is not covered by the proviso to section 16 of the Act. That being so, the learned Sessions Judge was not at all justified when, while maintaining the fine of Rs. 1,000/-, he reduced the sentence from six months' R.T. to the period already undergone. This he could not have done under law. He was bound under law to award sentence of not less than six months' R.I. The notice for enhancement in this case was, therefore, rightly issued. We think the applicant must get a sentence of at least six months' R.I. 7. In the result, we find no force in this revision and dismiss it accordingly. The notice for enhancement is confirmed and besides a fine of Rs. 1,000/- which has already been awarded to the applicant, he is also sentenced to an imprisonment of six months' R.I. He should be taken in custody to serve out the sentence that has been imposed by this Court.