JUDGMENT - R.K. JOSHI, J.:---This is an appeal by the State for enhancement of sentence. The respondent-accused has been convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasik, under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to suffer R.I. for fifteen days. 2. The accused was the owner of the hotel known as "Tourist Home" standing on Old Agra Road, Nasik. The Food Inspector Mr. Begle visited the hotel on 18th November, 1972 and inter alia purchased 375 grams of refined groundnut oil from the accused for the purposes of analysis, on observing all the pre-requisite formalities. He forwarded the sample to the Public Analyst who found it to be adulterated with some other edible oil and thus it contravened the provisions of Rule 44(e) framed under the Act. On obtaining the sanction the respondent-accused was prosecuted for selling adulterated Article of food. 3. The defence was that the accused is not a dealer in oil, but runs a hotel and for his own use he had taken out some oil. The oil from which the sample was taken was the oil which remained after preparation of the food and he never sold it as refined oil, nor did he ever adulterate it. This defence found little favour with the learned Magistrate. 4. It is needless to go through the entire evidence in extenso, but suffice it to mention that the report of the Public Analyst shows that the quantity sold was an admixture of two edible oils. Under Rule 44 framed under the Act sale of certain admixtures is prohibited. Inter alia, it prohibits sale of a mixture of two or more edible oils as an edible oil. When such sale is prohibited by the rule, it would be the sale of an adulterated article. 5. The next important point is whether the case is governed by section 16(1)(a)(i) or 16(1)(a)(ii). If the offence is covered by Clause (i) of section 16(1)(a) then the Court is vested with little discretion and is invariably called upon to impose the minimum sentence which is six months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 5. The next important point is whether the case is governed by section 16(1)(a)(i) or 16(1)(a)(ii). If the offence is covered by Clause (i) of section 16(1)(a) then the Court is vested with little discretion and is invariably called upon to impose the minimum sentence which is six months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. However, if the case is covered by clause (ii) which deals with article other than articles of food referred to in sub-clause (i), in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, or of any rule made thereunder, then the Court may for adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or of fine of less than one thousand rupees. As noted above, the contravention is of Rule 44(e). Therefore, this case would be squarely covered by Clause (ii). Ultimately the Court will have some discretion in imposing the punishment. 6. The learned Magistrate has taken into account two important factors. In the first instance, he has pointed out that the accused himself appears to be an innocent purchaser. He is not a dealer in oil, and had purchased the quantity probably for the preparation of snacks. Secondly, it is said by the learned Magistrate that the admixture of two edible oils is not shown to be injurious to human life. One may or may not agree with him; but one thing is certain that the accused is not shown to be instrumental in mixing one of the oils of inferior quality. The reasons given by the learned Magistrate in exercising his discretion in awarding a lesser punishment cannot be said to be injudicious or unreasonable calling for interference at this stage. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction sentence passed by the lower Court is confirmed. -----