JUDGMENT P.N.Bakshi, J. 1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Corporation, Kanpur. His conviction and sentence have been upheld in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard counsel for the parties and have also very carefully perused the record of the case. According to the prosecution the Food Inspector visited the premises of the applicant at 128/20-H2 Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur on 30th July 1976 at about 2 P. M. The applicant was present there. Sealed tins of Ganesh Bahar were on display for sale. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity purchased six tins of Ganesh Bahar on payment of requisite price. The tins were sealed in accordance with law. The ingredients of the Masala were printed on the Dibba. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst for report, which indicated that it contained magnesium 0.6% and carbonate 1. 28%. These ingredients were not included in the ingredients appearing on the tin container. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. The defence plea was that the applicant was not present at the time the same was taken. He was called subsequently. It is also pleaded that the tins which were purchased as sample by the Food Inspector were not complete, inasmuch as the labels declaring all the ingredients including Magnesium and Carbonate had not been pasted on the tins. It was the defence case that formerly these two ingredients were not mixed the old formula was printed on the tin containers, but after the addition of these ingredients paper labels declaring all the ingredients used to be pasted on the old printed tins. The new tin containers have all the ingredients printed on them. Ashok Kumar Awasthi was produced to prove this defence case. 3. On the question whether the applicant was present or not at the time the sample was taken by the Food Inspector, the courts below have concurrently held that he was present. This is a pure finding of fact which cannot be set aside in revision. 4. Ashok Kumar Awasthi was produced to prove this defence case. 3. On the question whether the applicant was present or not at the time the sample was taken by the Food Inspector, the courts below have concurrently held that he was present. This is a pure finding of fact which cannot be set aside in revision. 4. The main question which has been argued by the applicant's counsel is that the Sessions Judge has convicted the applicant because he has failed to prove that he had obtained the approval of the Central Committee for Food Standards with respect to the two added ingredients in the sample, namely, magnesium and carbonate. He urges that this point was taken for the first time by the appellate court and adequate opportunity was not given to the applicant to prove his case. He urges that it was the duty of the prosecution to have taken up this case at the very initial stage and to put question to the accused under Section 313 CrPC in that connection so that he may have had adequate opportunity to defend himself on that score. I have carefully perused the statement of the Food Inspector in this connection. It is true that he admitted in cross-examination that the applicant had told him that the tins were not complete for supply and that the other tins which were ready for supply had labels on them. For purposes of arguments the Sessions Judge accepted the position that paper labels declaring all the ingredients of the Masala including magnesium and carbonate were available with the applicant and had to be pasted on the tins which were taken as sample by the Food inspector. Yet, inspite of it the Sessions Judge was of the view that the accused could not get the benefit of these circumstances because he had failed to prove that he had obtained the approval of the Central Committee for Food Standards for using Magnesium and Carbonate as the ingredients of Ganesh Bahar Masala. Rule 37-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 runs as follows : "Labels for proprietary or fancy trade names. In all types of proprietary foods, where fancy names or trade names are used, the name of the food or category under which it falls in these rules shall also be mentioned on the label. Rule 37-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 runs as follows : "Labels for proprietary or fancy trade names. In all types of proprietary foods, where fancy names or trade names are used, the name of the food or category under which it falls in these rules shall also be mentioned on the label. In case it cannot be classified in any of the standards prescribed in Appendix B, then the names of the ingredients used in the products in descending order of composition shall be indicated on the label subject to approval of the Central Committee for Food Standards." It is obvious from a perusal of the aforesaid rule that the ingredients used in the product manufactured have to be indicated in the descending order of composition on the labels subject to the approval of the Central Committee for Food Standards. This implies that approval for the addition of an ingredient should be obtained prior to the inclusion of the ingredient in. the product. The rule would become redundant or meaningless if a manufacturer is permitted to add an ingredient to his product first, and to obtain the permission of the Central Committee subsequently. The object of this rule is that it should guard against the inclusion of ingredients which may be injurious to health. Therefore, before the ingredient is added its permission must be obtained from the Central Committee for Food Standards. To my mind, there can be no doubt that prior approval of the Central Committee is a condition precedent to the addition of the ingredient to the product manufactured. 5. It is true that this point was taken up for the first time before the Sessions Judge in appeal, and it was not canvassed before the trial court. But the Sessions Judge on a request being made to him vide application dated 3-4-1978 permitted an opportunity to tie accused-applicant to file additional evidence in the interest of justice. The applicant did file additional evidence. The first document was a carbon copy of the letter dated 9th April 1976 suit on behalf of the Laxmi Narain and Sons, the proprietor, to the Chairman, Central Committee for Food Standards, Delhi. In this letter all the ingredients, including Magnesium and Carbonate, of Ganesh Bahar Masala were mentioned and approval was sought under Section 37-A of the PF Rules. In this letter all the ingredients, including Magnesium and Carbonate, of Ganesh Bahar Masala were mentioned and approval was sought under Section 37-A of the PF Rules. A postal Certificate was also filed along with this letter to show that it was sent to the above authority. This letter has been rightly accepted by the Sessions Judge but at the best it only shows that a request for approval of the new ingredients of the Ganesh Bahar Masala was sent to the Central Committee for Food Standards. The other two documents which have been filed are photostat copies of the letters sent on 28th May 1978 and 1st June 1978 to the Chairman, Central Committee for Food Standards in which a similar prayer has been made for getting approval as early as possible. Two other letters are dated 31st August 1978 and 13th September 1978. These letters have bean addressed to the Directorate General of Health Services, New Delhi. Here again the request for approval has been repeated. Apart from these documents no other document has been filed by tie applicant to prove that the consent of the Central Committee for Food Standards has actually been obtained. Counsel for the applicant has also conceded before the Sessions Judge that no approval was received from the Central Committee for Food Standards after 9th April 1976. The position is, therefore, clear that adequate and sufficient opportunity was given to the applicant by the Sessions Judge concerned for the purpose of production of additional evidence by the accused- applicant, it is further clear that documents which have been filed on behalf of the accused do not prove that consent has been obtained from the Central Committee for Food Standards. In this set of circumstances, it docs not lie in the mouth of the applicant to urge now that he has not been given a fair opportunity to defend himself or that he has in any manner been prejudiced at the trial. In my opinion, therefore, there is no merit in this contention which must be rejected. 6. The question of sentence was also argued before the Session Judge. He was of the opinion that no grounds exist for awarding a lesser sentence. Here I am unable to agree with this observation. In my opinion, therefore, there is no merit in this contention which must be rejected. 6. The question of sentence was also argued before the Session Judge. He was of the opinion that no grounds exist for awarding a lesser sentence. Here I am unable to agree with this observation. This is not a case in which the applicant has totally ignored the seeking of permission from the Central Committee for Food Standards for the addition of two ingredients to his Masala. The Food Inspector had visited the shop of the applicant on 30th July 1976 and taken sample from him. Prior to that the applicant had already applied on 9th April 1976 to the Chairman, Central Committee for Food Standards seeking permission for the approval of the ingredients mentioned in that letter. Magnesium and Carbonate to the extent of 2 percent have been specifically mentioned therein. The applicant, therefore, knew that before he could add to the contents of the ingredients he had to obtain prior permission of the Central Committer and it was in pursuance of that knowledge that he made an application on 9th April 1976 Unfortunately sanction was not received. From the documentary evidence filed on the record, to which I have already referred above, there can be no doubt that he sent reminders to the authority concerned for according sanction as early as possible. Thus the applicant has been making an effort to get sanction, but for the reasons best known to the Central Committee, the same has not been received as yet. I do not express any opinion on the question whether for the addition of these ingredients, permission should or should not have been granted, but the fact remains that the applicant has made a genuine effort for obtaining permission for the inclusion of these ingredients in his Ganesh Bahar Masala. There is yet another reason why the applicant is entitled to the relief on the question of sentence. From a perusal of the report of the Public Analyst, there can be no doubt that magnesium and coronate have been added to the extent of 0.6% and 1.28%. The applicant had sought permission for the addition of both these ingredients to the extent of 2 percent. There is nothing in the report to indicate that these ingredients are injurious to health. The applicant had sought permission for the addition of both these ingredients to the extent of 2 percent. There is nothing in the report to indicate that these ingredients are injurious to health. Therefore, this can be taken as a mitigating circumstance affecting the question of sentence. 7. The Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the instant case was covered by clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 16. This proviso gives a discretion to the Court to impose a sentence which can be less than six months Rl and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The minimum sentence provided in this proviso is three months RI and a fine which shall not be less than Rs. 500/-. Having regard to the circumstances mentioned above, I am of the opinion that there are adequate reasons for interfering on the question of sentence. 8. While therefore upholding the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of rood Adulteration Act, I hereby reduce the sentence imposed upon the applicant to three months Rl and a fine of Rs. 500/-. With this modification in sentence this revision is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment as modified by this Court. The fine shall be paid within three months from today, failing which the applicant shall suffer six weeks RI.