ORDER P.N. Bakshi, J. -The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-. His conviction has been maintained in appeal but the sentence of imprisonment has been reduced to two months R.I. The sentence of fine has been maintained. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector purchased a sample of Besan from the applicant's shop at 4-30 P.M. on 23rd December, 1974 in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phial was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis whose report disclosed that it was mixed with pea flour to a large extent and Kesari Dal flour to some extent. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and sentenced as above. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case have held the accused guilty of the offence. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the courts below to warrant interference in revision. Rule 44-A totally prohibits the sale or exposing for sale a mixture of Kesari Dal with any other article of food, since Kesari is injurious to health. 3. On the report of the Public Analyst it is clear that the sample in question had mixture of Kesari Dal which though only to some extent. The Sessions Judge in the appeal appears to have given the advantage of this finding to the accused-applicant when he reduced the sentences imposed upon him from six months R.I. to two months R.I. Neither on merits nor on the ground of sentence is there any cause for interference in revision. 4. This revision application is hereby dismissed. The interim order passed.by this Court on 21-l-1980 is set aside. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment.