JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This revision has been filed by Vidya Ram against the order of the Second Additional Sessions Judge of Kumaun dated 23rd January, 1973, dismissing the appeal filed by him against the judgment of the Additional S.D.M. Baramandal, Almora dated 31-3-1971. By the aforesaid judgment, the Additional S.D.M. convicted the applicant under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo one year's R.I. and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. The facts of the case, as may be briefly stated, are that Vidya Ram applicant is a Halwai. He was running a shop at Utrayani fair in January, 1970. On 15th January, 1970, Krishna Chandra Pant who was the Food Inspector posted at Bageshwar fair took a sample of Pera which was being sold by the applicant and divided the same into three equal parts. One of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the Pera was coloured with one of the coal-tar-dyes, the use of which was not permitted and that the milk fat contents were also deficient. 3. The applicant pleaded not guilty and denied that the Food Inspector had taken any sample from his shop on 15th January, 1970. Pie also denied the signatures on Exts. Ka-1 and Ka-2 which were allegedly obtained by the Food Inspector on 15 January, 1970 after taking the sample from the applicant. One of these exhibits was a receipt in token of the payment of money for the purchase of Pera. The other was a receipt showing that a sample had been obtained by the Food Inspector from the applicant. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution produced four witnesses, P.W. 1 Krishna Chandra Pant, P.W. 2 Anand Ballabh Kandpal, another Food Inspector, P.W. 3 Bhupal Singh and P.W. 4 Dalip Ram, Sanitary Jamadar. During the course of the trial before the Magistrate, the applicant filed an application for sending exhibits Ka-1 and Ka-2 to the handwriting expert for the purpose of getting his signatures compared with those made in the exhibits. Accordingly, the signatures were sent to Sri M.K. Mehta. He submitted a report to the effect that Exts. Ka-1 and Ka-2 did not bear the signatures of the applicant. 5. Accordingly, the signatures were sent to Sri M.K. Mehta. He submitted a report to the effect that Exts. Ka-1 and Ka-2 did not bear the signatures of the applicant. 5. The trial court, however, after examining the evidence of the prosecution as well as that of the handwriting expert and also that of the witness produced from the side of the defence came to the conclusion that the Pera was purchased by Krishna Chandra Pant from the applicant on 15th January, 1970 and that as the applicant had mixed permitted coal-tar-dye in the Pera, he was liable to be convicted under section 7/16. In appeal preferred by the applicant, the conviction was maintained but the sentence was converted from imprisonment into that of fine of Rs. 2000/-. Fences this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant urged that the courts below committed an error of law in holding that Exts. Ka-1 and Ka-2 bore his signatures and that the sample had been obtained by Krishna Chandra Pant (P.W. I) from him on 15th March, 1970. Pointing out the statement of the applicant made under section 342 Cr. P.C. counsel urged that in fact the applicant had not gone to the Bageshwari fair and had not kept any shop in the same. Therefore, the conviction of the applicant was unjustified. In that connection, the learned counsel also invited my attention to the report of Sri M.K. Mehta in which he had mentioned that the disputed signatures did not tally with those of the admitted signatures. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It is true that the report of the handwriting expert Sri M.K. Mehta does indicate that the signatures made on Exts. Ka-1 and Ka-2 were not made by the same person who had given his signatures before the court. But the report of the handwriting expert was not conclusive of the controversy. The statements made by Krishan Chandra Pant, P.W. 1 and Bhupal Singh, P.W. 3, show that the sample had been obtained on 15th January, 1970 from the applicant by the Food Inspector. Bhupal Singh is an independent witness against whom the applicant could not allege any enormity or any such thing which could render his testimony untrustworthy. The statements made by Krishan Chandra Pant, P.W. 1 and Bhupal Singh, P.W. 3, show that the sample had been obtained on 15th January, 1970 from the applicant by the Food Inspector. Bhupal Singh is an independent witness against whom the applicant could not allege any enormity or any such thing which could render his testimony untrustworthy. He deposed that the sample was taken in his presence by the Food Inspector from the applicant who was running his shop by the side of the shop of Bhupal Singh. The statement of Krishna Chandra Pant is also to the same effect. The two courts below had considered the report of the handwriting expert as well as the statements of the two witnesses. They found that the evidence of the prosecution established that the sample had been taken by the Food Inspector from the applicant on 15th January, 1970. Taking into account the statement of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, it is not possible to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that simply because of the handwriting expert, the conviction of the applicant may be held to be illegal. The handwriting expert has clearly admitted in his evidence that the style of the disputed signatures was similar to that of the admitted signatures of the applicant. This is also a circumstance which shows that the prosecution case was rightly believed by the two courts below. Moreover, the question argued by the learned counsel for the applicant was one of fact the decision of which depends on the consideration of the evidence. As the two courts below have also considered the evidence and have recorded findings against the applicant holding that the sample was taken from his shop, it is not possible for me to interfere with the same. 8. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. The applicant is granted two months' time for making the payment of fine imposed on him. The stay order dated 21.2.197-3 is vacated.