Short Note : 1. The applicants No.1 and 2 are brothers. The applicant No.1 was carrying on business of preparation and sale of sweets. On 27-10-70 when the Food Inspector L. S. Chauhan (P.W. 11) went to the shop of the applicants he found applicant No.2 Ramesh Chandra on the shop. 60 k. g. of Batasas were found in the shop. Out of them 10 k. g. batasas Were of red colour, 10 k. g. of yellow colour and the remaining were white. The food Inspector purchased from the applicant No. 2,1500 grams of the red coloured Batasas on payment of Rs.3.30 p. The quantity purchased was divided in three equal parts and after duly sealing and performing the requisite formalities one of the sample packets was sent to the Public Analyst for Analysis. The Public Analyst found that un-permitted colour was used in the preparation of the Batasas and therefore he opined that the article of food was adulterated. On these facts applicants were prosecuted u/s. 16 (i) (a) (i) and (ii) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The applicants denied their guilt. After trial the learned Magistrate convicted the applicants of the offence charged with and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 8 months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal preferred by the applicants the conviction of the applicants was maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to four months rigorous imprisonment and sentence in default of payment of fine was also reduced to four months rigorous imprisonment. The applicants have challenged their conviction and sentence in this revision. Held: It is proved from the evidence of Food Inspector L. S. Chauhan (P.W. 1) which has been accepted by both the Courts below that the article of food in question was stored for sale. The defence of the applicants was that one Mangusingh had supplied the sugar as also the colour and that they had prepared the Batasas for him and it was not for sale. This defence has been disbelieved by the Courts below. It was also not suggested to the Food Inspector that the applicant No.2 told him that the Batasas were not for sale and that therefore he would not sell the Batasas to the Food Inspector as sample. This defence has been disbelieved by the Courts below. It was also not suggested to the Food Inspector that the applicant No.2 told him that the Batasas were not for sale and that therefore he would not sell the Batasas to the Food Inspector as sample. It was not suggested to him that the applicant No.2 was not accepting the price and that the food Inspector forcibly paid the price. This suggestion was denied by the food Inspector. The complainant's witness-however, admitted in cross-examination that the applicant No.2 told the Food Inspector at that time that the Batasas were prepared at the instance of Mangusingh. Mangusingh was also examined as defence witness who supported the defence case. However, the defence case was disbelieved because in the Statement of applicant No. 1 he has categorically admitted that the article in question was stored for sale and in their statements u/s. 313 Cr. P. C. both the applicants said nothing about the Batasas having been prepared at the instance of Mangusingh. I am, therefore, of the opinion that on this evidence the Court below were justified in convicting the applicants for the offence charged with and there is no ground for interfering with the conviction of the applicants. 2. The sentence awarded to the applicant is also in accordance with law. The adulteration found in the article of food is u/s. 2 (1) (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and therefore the proviso to section 16 of the Act does not apply. It was, therefore, incumbent for the magistrate to sentence the applicant with minimum sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine not less than Rs. 1000/-. In the circumstances, there is no ground for interfering with the sentence of the applicant. Revision dismissed.