JUDGMENT M. Murtaza Hussain, J. - Ram Chander petitioner was convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by a Magistrate of the 1st class at Bulandshahr. He was sentenced to undergo six month's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to undergo R.I. for six months. He preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge against his aforesaid conviction and sentence but the same was dismissed. He has now filed this revision. 2. The petitioner has a shop in a Village Chaderu within the circle of police station Sikandrabad in the district of Bulandshahr. It is said that at about 12'o clock in the noon of 23 6.1972 Tejpal Singh PW1 is the Food Inspector of Sikandrabad Block, found edible oil exposed for sale at petitioner's shop. He purchased 375 grams of that oil for sample purposes after giving due notice to the petitioner and paying its price to him in lieu of a receipt. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst who found a lot of Moongphali oil mixed therein and reported that it was adulterated. A complaint was then filed against the petitioner. He pleaded not guilty and stated that no sample was taken from him and his signature was obtained by the Food Inspector on two papers with the representation that the same was required for making him a witness. Mohmmad Shami Khan D.W. 1 was examined by the petitioner in his defence. The courts below have rejected his defence evidence and relying upon the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the petitioner. 3. It has been firstly, contented before me that because there is no independent witness of taking sample by the Food Inspector so that factum of taking of sample ought not to have been believed by the courts below. Tejpal Singh P.W.1 Banarsi Dass P.W.2 and Mahesh Kumar P.W.3 have stated about the purchase of the alleged sample from the petitioner. Exs. Ka 1 and Ka. 2 bear petitioner's signature and they support the testimony of those witnesses. Affixing of his signature by the petitioner on those papers is admitted by him. His explanation and defence evidence to the effect that petitioner's signatures were obtained on those papers fraudulently cannot be accepted because the petitioner is an illiterate person. Exs. Ka 1 and Ka. 2 bear petitioner's signature and they support the testimony of those witnesses. Affixing of his signature by the petitioner on those papers is admitted by him. His explanation and defence evidence to the effect that petitioner's signatures were obtained on those papers fraudulently cannot be accepted because the petitioner is an illiterate person. It is true that Banarsi Dass and Mahesh Kumar Pws are employees of the Health Department but on that account alone they cannot be disbelieved. The Food Inspector has explained that no other man of public came to petitioner's shop when sample was obtained. There is consequently no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence about the taking of sample. 4. It was next contended on behalf of the petitioner that the oil which was at petitioner's shop was non-edible i.e. usable for burning, and, therefore the petitioner could not be prosecuted. Mohammad Shami Khan DW 1 has stated about it but the courts below have disbelieved him because he is the pradhan of the village and the petitioner is Up-pradhan and associated with him. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the case of Nagar Mahapalika Varanasi v. Parmeshwar, 1973 All. Cr. Case 64. In that case there was evidence on the point that the shop-keeper had made it clear to the Food Inspector at the time of taking sample that the oil was non-edible. In the present case there is no evidence to that effect if the statement of Mohammad Shami Khrn DW 1 is not believed. It is difficult to hold that a mixture of Moongphali and mustard oil would be sold by any shop-keeper in villages for burning purpose. I am, therefore, not prepared to hold that the oil which was at petitioner's shop and whose sample was taken by the Food Inspector was non-edible. 5. It was next argued on behalf of the petitioner that because the sample of oil taken from petitioner's shop was found by the Public Analyst to be a mixture of two oils so no adulteration was proved. Reliance has been placed upon a single Judge decision of this Court in Ajodhiya Prasad v. State, 1977 All. Cr. 5. It was next argued on behalf of the petitioner that because the sample of oil taken from petitioner's shop was found by the Public Analyst to be a mixture of two oils so no adulteration was proved. Reliance has been placed upon a single Judge decision of this Court in Ajodhiya Prasad v. State, 1977 All. Cr. Cases 195 wherein it has been Laid down that a mixture of mustard oil and linseed oil would be edible and if a seller represents such a mixture as pure mustard oil, it would be a case of cheating and would not be punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In this authority the implication of the definition of the word 'adulterated' given in section 2(ia)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which lays down that if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchasers and is to his prejudice or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be, it will be deemed to be adulterated. This definition contemplates that if the vendor represents an article to be that required by the purchaser though in fact it is not of that quality or nature then he will be deemed to deal in adulterated article. Rule 44(2) of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act also prohibits sale of mixture of two or more edible oils as an edible oil. By virtue of that rule and the above noted definition the oil whose sample was taken from petitioner's shop shall be deemed to be adulterated. As the case referred to above does not deal with that aspect of the law it cannot be relied upon as an authority to the effect that a mixture of two edible oils sold by a vendor can never be said to be adulterated. Under the circumstances I am of the opinion that the petitioner has been rightly convicted by the courts below. I maintain his conviction. 6. Under the circumstances I am of the opinion that the petitioner has been rightly convicted by the courts below. I maintain his conviction. 6. Considering the circumstances that the petitioner is a petty hawker has no previous conviction to his credit, the occurrence had taken place in the year 1972, and, the petitioner has remained in jail for sometime as an under trial and as a convict I am of the opinion that there was adequate and compelling reason to take a lenient view in the matter of petitioner's sentence. To my mind reduction of petitioner's sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him and the reduction of fine from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) would be adequate punishment for the petitioner. 7. This revision is consequently partly allowed ami partly dismissed. The conviction of the petitioner ordered by the courts below is upheld. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to him by those courts is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the sentence of Rs. 1,000/- fine is reduced to Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred). The petitioner is given three month's time to pay the reduced amount of fine from the data of the receipt of the report in the trial court otherwise he will undergo R.I. for three months. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.