JUDGMENT M. Murtaza Hussain, J. - The petitioner Kewal Ram was convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by a Magistrate of the 1st class at Pilibhit and sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. He filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, who maintained petitioner's conviction but reduced the sentence of one year's R.I. to six month's R.I. The petitioner has now come with this revision. 2. The prosecution case is that on 20.10.1971 Param Singh, Food Inspector, (P.W.I), raided petitioner's grocery shop in village Baldeopur within the circle of police station Neoria in the district of Pilibhit and purchased sample of edible oil which was stored by the petitioner at his shop for sale. The sample was duly sealed and one phial was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the oil, which was being sold by the petitioner at his shop, was adulterated with also oil and was also coloured with a prohibited dye. In other words he found the sample to be adulterated. A complaint was then filed against the petitioner. He pleaded not guilty to the accusation levelled against him and suggested that the Food Inspector was demanding illegal gratification from him and when he did not pay the same he was falsely implicated. It was also suggested by the petitioner that the oil which was at his shop was not meant for human consumption. Bholey Ram and Chet Ram were examined by the petitioner in his defence. The court below have rejected the defence evidence and have pleaded reliance upon the statements of the Food Inspector and one Dori, who was examined on behalf of the prosecution. 3. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the taking of the alleged sample from petitioner's shop was not satisfactorily proved. Param Singh Food Inspector and Dori have stated as PWs. 1 and 2 respectively that the sample of oil which was at petitioner's grocery shop was purchased by the Food Inspector at the alleged date and time and was duly sealed. Their statements find support by Ex. Ka. 1 which is a receipt of Rs. 1/87 issued by the petitioner to the Food Inspector for the price of the sample paid to him by the food Inspector. Their statements find support by Ex. Ka. 1 which is a receipt of Rs. 1/87 issued by the petitioner to the Food Inspector for the price of the sample paid to him by the food Inspector. It is also clear from the statements of the defence witnesses that sample was obtained by the Food Inspector from oil, which was in stock at petitioner's shop. In this state of affairs there is no reason to reject the testimony of the Food Inspector and Dori. The taking of the alleged sample from petitioner's shop is thus full established. The Public Analyst's report leaves no reason for doubt that the sample of oil taken from petitioner's shop contained very large proportion of linseed oil and it was coloured with an unpermitted coaltar dye. The oil which was at the petitioner's shop was thus adulterated. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the oil which was at his shop was for burning and machinery purposes and was not for human consumption. Bholey Ram and Chet Ram have undisputed stated about it but they are men of petitioner's village and are naturally interested in saving him. It is difficult to believe that a mixture of labi and linseed oil was in store at petitioner's shop for sale for burning and machinery purpose and not for human consumption. The shop of the petitioner is of grocery and contains articles of human consumption. Lani and Linseed oil is generally not used for burning purposes. The courts below have, therefore, rightly rejected petitioner's contention of the existence of oil at his shop for burning and machinery purposes not for human consumption. In my opinion an offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act stands fully made out against the petitioner. 5. It is clear from the statement of the Food Inspector that the edible oil in stock at petitioner's shop was about half kilograms. It is thereby evident that he is a petty hawker. He keeps a few articles at his shop in the village. The occurrence took place more than six years back. The courts below have themselves found petitioner's case for awarding lenient punishment as the minimum prescribed punishment of imprisonment and fine has not been awarded to him by any of two courts below. He keeps a few articles at his shop in the village. The occurrence took place more than six years back. The courts below have themselves found petitioner's case for awarding lenient punishment as the minimum prescribed punishment of imprisonment and fine has not been awarded to him by any of two courts below. In my opinion ends of justice would adequately meet if instead of being sent to jail a fine of Rs.. 300/- is awarded to the petitioner. 6. I, therefore, dismiss this revision and maintain the conviction of the petitioner ordered by the courts below but I set aside the sentence of six months R.I. awarded to him by the lower appellate court and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred only). The petitioner is directed to pay that amount of fine within three months of the date of the receipt of the record in the trial court otherwise he will have to undergo R.I. for three months.