JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Sections 2/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Bulandshar, hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders and the record of the case. 3. According to the prosecution the Food Inspector had purchased Nugdi Laddo from the shop of the accused at 12-15 p.m. on 14th September, 1973, which the accused professed to have been made in mustard oil. The sample was bottled and sealed in accordance with law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis, whose report disclosed that the sample contained a mixture of mustard oil and Vanaspati. It was therefore adulterated. The accused denied his guilt. The courts below on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused has been satisfactorily established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded concurrently by the subordinate courts to warrant interference in revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that `Nugdi ka Laddoos' were prepared in mustard oil, Marka Sarsol Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd , Ghaziabad and that if there was any adulteration, the Company must have been responsible for it. No evidence has been led to prove that the aforesaid oil in which the Nugdi ka Ladoos are alleged to have been prepared was purchased from the said Company at Ghaziabad and that was kept stored in a place in the same condition and that the same was being used. It is not the case for the defence that the closed tin was opened and a sample was taken therefrom. The prosecution case that Nugdi ka Laddoos were prepared in oil. There can be no guarantee that the accused was using the same oil which was in the tin and had not mixed Vanaspati with it while preparing Nugdi ka Laddoos. If mustard oil is refined it can not be admixed with vanaspati. Refinement means purity. Therefore, in refined mustard oil you can not get a mixture of Vanaspati. There can be no guarantee that the accused was using the same oil which was in the tin and had not mixed Vanaspati with it while preparing Nugdi ka Laddoos. If mustard oil is refined it can not be admixed with vanaspati. Refinement means purity. Therefore, in refined mustard oil you can not get a mixture of Vanaspati. In my opinion, both the courts below have rightly held on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst that the oil in which Nugdi ka Laddoos were prepared was a mixture of mustard oil and Vanaspati. Therefore, the article of Food was not prepared in a cooking medium which was represented by the accused. Mixture of two edible oils is also an offence under Rule 44(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The applicant has been rightly convicted for the offence, in question. 5. Adulteration is becoming very rampant now and it has to be suppressed with a stiff hand. I do not find any extenuating circumstance for reducing the sentence. 6. There is no merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of sentence of imprisonment. The interim order passed by this court dated 18-4-79, staying realisation of fine is hereby vacated.