JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 1 year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for selling adulterated gram Dal. He has further been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 250/- for breach of Rule 50 of the Adulteration Rules by the Munsif-Magistrate Pilibhit. In appeal his conviction and sentence for the breach of Rule 50 has been set aside, but his conviction under sections 7/16 of the Act above mentioned and the sentence imposed thereunder have been maintained. Hence this revision, which was admitted by me on the question of sentence. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, the Food Inspector Pilibhit purchased a sample of Gram Dal from the shop of the applicant at 4.30 p.m. on 11-3-1976. Its sample was sent to the Public Analyst. The result of the analysis disclosed that the sample contained 8 percent Kesari Dal. It also appears that on the request of the accused another Phial of the same sample was sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory Calcutta for analysis. The report of the Director disclosed that the sample contained 4.9 percent of Kesari Dal. The above facts have been fully established from the evidence on the record. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below to warrant interference. 3. Counsel for the applicant has urged that the applicant is not a previous convict. He has also submitted that the applicant has been in jail for about 3 months. He has also argued that according to the report of the Director, which supersedes the report of the Public Analyst, the adulteration in the sample by the mixture of Kesari Dal is only to the extent of 4.9 per cent. As such he argued that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the applicant should be reduced to the period already undergone. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions. It is to be noticed that the offence in question was committed on 11th of March, 76, and the Food Adulteration Amendment Act No. 34 of 1974 came into force on 7th of February, 1976. The amended Section will, therefore, be applicable to the facts of the present case. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions. It is to be noticed that the offence in question was committed on 11th of March, 76, and the Food Adulteration Amendment Act No. 34 of 1974 came into force on 7th of February, 1976. The amended Section will, therefore, be applicable to the facts of the present case. Under the amended proviso to section 16 of the said Act, a sentence, less than 6 months but not less than 3 months, can be awarded if the article adulterated is primary food. Primary food as defined in the Act means the article of food being a produce of agriculture or horticulture in its natural form. Gram Dal would certainly be covered under this definition, but I am not inclined to take such a lenient view on the question of sentence, so as to reduce it to the period already undergone, which in the instant case is 3 months because the adulteration of the Gram Dal is due to a mixture of Kesari dal which is a poisonous article and is hazardous to health. Under the rule 44-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, mixture of Kesari dal has been specifically prohibited. Having regard however to the circumstances that the extent of adulteration is only 4.9 percent and that this is the first offence committed by the applicant, I am prepared to extend the benefit of these circumstances to him, to the extent of reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him from 1 years' R.I. to 6 month's R.I. The sentence of fine of Rs. 2000/- however is maintained. The interim order passed by this Court on 13th of July, 1978 is hereby vacated. With this modification in sentence, this revision application is hereby dismissed.