JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Sia Ram has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 20.12.1977 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, dismissing his appeal and confirming his conviction u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo six months' R.I. 2. In brief the prosecution case was that on 19-10-1976 the Food Inspector took a sample of Zira from the shop of the revisionist which was exposed for sale and on analysis it was found to contain 15.2% extraneous matter. Thus it was found to be adulterated. 3. The revisionist denied the said charge and claimed the benefit of Section 19 on the ground that he is a whole-seller and had purchased the said Zira in a bag which was properly stitched and would have sold it in the same condition. Both the learned lower courts negatived this contention. There is no denial of the fact that the Food Inspector had purchased sample of Zira from the revisionist and it was found to be adulterated. 4. The only question for consideration is whether the revisionist can claim the benefit of Section 19. This section has been reproduced in the judgment of the lower appellate court. Primarily it extends to that article of food where licence is prescribed for sale thereof and it is purchased from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer or in any other case, from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer under a written warranty or the article of food was properly stored and he sold it in the same state as he purchased it. In the instant case the revisionist does not fall under any of these categories. The Zira was not in sealed tin boxes. He could very well have opened the bag and verified whether the Zira was adulterated or not. Failure to do so renders him liable u/s 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and in my judgment he was rightly convicted of this offence. The revisionist has filed an affidavit to show that he is 55 years of age and is not a previous convict and that he comes of a respectable family and one of his sons is a Cane Micrologist and that he is keeping indifferent health. The revisionist has filed an affidavit to show that he is 55 years of age and is not a previous convict and that he comes of a respectable family and one of his sons is a Cane Micrologist and that he is keeping indifferent health. There is no reason to disbelieve the allegations and they make out adequate and satisfactory grounds for reduction of the sentence. However, it cannot be reduced below three months and a fine of Rs. 500/-. 5. The revision application is dismissed and the revisionist's conviction u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is confirmed but the sentence is reduced to three months' R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of its payment to three month's further R.I. He is on bail and will surrender forthwith or be taken into custody to serve out the sentence.