JUDGMENT K. C. Agarwal, J. - A complaint was filed by the Food Inspector against the applicant for an offence under Sections 7, 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. A charge was framed against the applicant that he was found on 2241972 at 1000 a. m. exposing for sale BesankaLaddoos, prepared in vanaspati, which on analysis by the public analyst were found to be adulterated inasmuch as it was coloured with material yellow, the use of which was totally prohibited. The applicant pleaded not guilty and asserted that he had been falsely implicated. In his statement under Section 342 Criminal Procedure Code he further stated that he was an employee of the Muir Mills and that since he was Halwai bycaste, he used to prepare Laddoos out of the materials supplied to him by his customers. With regard to the Laddoos sold to the Food Inspector on 2241972, the defence taken was that the same were prepared out of the articles supplied to him by Abdul Aziz (D. W. 1). 2. To prove its case, the prosecution produced A. C. Asthana, the Food Inspector, as well as Waiya Din, Assistant Safai Nayag (P. W. 2). These two witnesses deposed that the Laddoos were purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant on 2241972 and that the same was sent to the public analyst thereafter. The public analyst, vide A 26 his report Ext. 4, found that the sample was adulterated inasmuch as it was coloured with a colour, the use of which was prohibited. In defence, the applicant also produced Abdul Aziz (P. W. 1) and Noor Mohammad (D. W. 2). Abdul Aziz stated that he had given the material to the applicant for preparing the BesankaLaddoos. This statement of Abdul Aziz was corroborated by Noor Mohammad. 3. After examining the evidence brought by parties, the Magistrate found that the applicant had committed the offence under Section 7/16 and, therefore, convicted him under the aforesaid section. In appeal, the conviction and sentence of the applicant was maintained by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant urged that the learned Sessions Judge committed an error in holding. In appeal, the conviction and sentence of the applicant was maintained by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant urged that the learned Sessions Judge committed an error in holding. "It is in dispute that the applicant held a licence for selling sweetmeats." From the statement of the Food Inspector the learned counsel for the applicant attempted to show that the possession of the licence by the applicant was very much disputed by the applicant and, therefore, the appellate court was not justified in holding that as the applicant held a licence for selling sweetmeats, he was a Halwai and could be prosecuted for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act. For an offence under Section 7/16, what was required by the prosecution to establish was that the commodity which was sold by the applicant was prepared with the use of the colour, the use of which was prohibited by law. A sale by way of a sample to the Food Inspector even for analysis is a "sale" within the meaning of the Act (A I. R. 1966, S.C. 128). A reading of the word "sale" would indicate that it was immaterial whether the applicant possessed a licence for the purposes of being covered under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act or not. The fact remains that the applicant had sold the Laddoos to the Food Inspector on 2241972. It was, however, admitted to be argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that Laddoos were taken by the Food Inspector and that his signature on the papers prepared by the Food Inspector were obtained, when they were blank. This submission had been made on behalf of the applicant in the Courts below also. The two Courts below did not believe the statement of the applicant that his signatures were obtained forcibly on blank papers. I have also no reason to differ from the view taken by the Courts below on this point. As the applicant had sold 1.500 kg. of Laddoos to the Food Inspector on 2241972, therefore the applicant had committed the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was liable to be convicted. Moreover, from the statements of A. C. Asthana (P. W. 1) and Maiyadin (P. W. 2) as well as from (Ex. As the applicant had sold 1.500 kg. of Laddoos to the Food Inspector on 2241972, therefore the applicant had committed the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was liable to be convicted. Moreover, from the statements of A. C. Asthana (P. W. 1) and Maiyadin (P. W. 2) as well as from (Ex. ka3) it appears that the licence had been shown to the Food Inspector at the time when the sample of the Laddoos was taken. The two Courts below believed the statements of these two witnesses as well as (Ex. ka3) and held that the applicant possessed a licence. This is again a question of fact. The finding given by the court below on the statements of A. C. Asthana and Maiyadin as well as (Ex. ka3 cannot be considered as illegal. 5. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no evidence on the record that the applicant was also found selling Barfi and Pera on the date when he as found selling the Laddoos, and, therefore, the inference drawn by the Courts below that he was a Halwai is illegal. Be that as it may be the finding given by me above shows that he sold the Laddoos to the Food Inspector and that was sufficient to convict him for the offence under Section 7/16 and the fact whether or not Pera and Barfi were found on the shop on the date on which the sample was taken is not of any consequence. Accordingly, as the applicant had used unpermitted coaltar dye in the Laddoos he was rightly convicted by the two Courts below. 6. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out sentence awarded to him. The stay order is discharged.