JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act and sentenced to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- by the Judicial Magistrate first Class, Shahjahanpur. In default of payment of fine he is to undergo three months R.I. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur vide his judgment and order dated 30th July, 1979. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. I have also scrutinised the record of the case. According to the prosecution story the applicant Chhunni Lal is the Proprietor of Mahesh Trading Company. The firm holds licence as Food Grain Dealer and carried on its trade in a shop situate in Pitterganj Market of Tilhar town. On 5th August, 1977 the Food Inspector inspected the shop of the applicant. In accordance with the formalities prescribed by law, the Food Inspector purchased a sample of gram which was kept at the applicant's shop. One of the sample phials, which had been prepared on the spot was seat for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that the gram in question contained 19.7% Kesari. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. Counsel for the applicant has argued that since the accused has informed that the gram in question was not meant for human consumption and was for animal consumption and had also made an endorsement to that effect on the receipt evidencing purchase of the sample. Therefore, (he Food Inspector had no jurisdiction to take the sample of gram from his shop for purpose of analysis. Therefore, (he Food Inspector had no jurisdiction to take the sample of gram from his shop for purpose of analysis. He had placed reliance upon section 10(2) proviso which reads as follows : "10(2) Any Food Inspector may enter and inspect any place where any article of food is manufactured or stored for sale, or stored for the manufacture of any other article of food for sale, or exposed or exhibited for sale or where any adulterant manufactured or kept, and take samples of such articles of food or adulterant for analysis : Provided that no sample of any article of food, being primary food, shall be taken under this sub-section if it is not intended for sale as such food." The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that gram is 'primary food' and since it was not meant for human consumption, but was for consumption by the animals, therefore, the Food Inspector had no jurisdiction to take its sample. Learned counsel for that purpose had also relied upon the definition of 'Primary food' which means "any article of food, being a produce of agriculture or horticulture in its natural form". 4. I have considered this submission carefully, but I do not find any merit in it. A Full Bench decision of our Court reported in State of U.P. v. Babu Lal, 1977 (II) FAC 28 has been cited by the counsel for the State, in which it has been held that it is no defence to a prosecution under the Act to say that: (a) the accused did not intend to use Kesari Dal as food, or (b) that he never intended to sell it as food. Rule 44-A of the Act runs as follows J 44-A No person in any State shall, with effect from such date as the State Government concerned may by notification in the official Gazette specify in this behalf, sell or offeror expose for sale, or have in bis possession for the purpose of sale under any description or for use as an ingredient in the preparation of any article of food intended for sale - (a) Kesari gram and its products " This rule clearly indicates that there is a total ban on the possession for purpose of sale of Kesari Dal, no matter what nature of sale it might be. Referring to the definition of the word 'sale' as given in section 2(xiii) of the Act, we find that 'sale with the grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means the sale of any article of food, whether for cash or on credit or by way of exchange, and whether by wholesale or retail, for human consumption or use, or for analysis, and includes an agreement of sale, an offer for sale, the exposing for sale, or having in possession for sale of any such article, and includes also an attempt to sell any such articles." 5. Even in this definition, as has been held by the Full Bench, sale for purpose of human consumption is not the only sale which is contemplated. When there is specific provision in the Rules, which prohibits complete possession and sale of Kesari Dal then the accused cannot be heard to say that his possession, even though in contravention of the Rules, should be deemed to be a valid possession in the eyes of law. The applicant has certainly contravened Rule 44-A(a) by keeping gram which has a mixture of Kesari Dal in his shop for sale. Even though such sale may not be exclusively for the purposes of human consumption, mere possession of Kesari Dal itself for the purpose of sale under any description is totally banned under Rule 44-A(a). Apart from the views, which I have expressed, I am also bound by the decision of the Full Bench of this court. 6. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below, which, in my opinion, is a perfectly valid order, passed in accordance with law. 7. There is no merit in this revision which is hereby dismissed. The applicant shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant prayed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. I do not think it is a fit case for grant of leave, as such leave is refused.