JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has been sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. The applicant has been prosecuted for colouring Bengali sweets with a colour which is not permitted under the Rules. The sweets had been coloured by coaltar dye, which is prohibited under rule 29 of the rules framed under the Act. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant could not be convicted as the coaltar dye, by which the Bengali sweets were coloured, was not food and thus the act of the applicant could not amount to adulteration of food. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel is devoid of any force. Section 2(i)(j) defines "adulterated" as follows"- "If any colouring matter other than that prescribed in respect thereof is present in the article, or if the amounts of the prescribed colouring matter which is present in the article are not within the prescribed limits of variability." From the aforesaid it is clear that food would be deemed to be adulterated if any colouring matter other than that prescribed in respect thereof is present in the article. The two courts below have found from the report of the public analyst that the bengali sweets were coloured by coaltar dye which is not permitted under rule 29 of the Rules framed under the Act. 4. The learned counsel in the end argued that the sentence awarded to the applicant is too servere and may be reduced to 3 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- under proviso to section 16 of the Act. In my opinion the proviso to section 16 of the Act will have no application, as the minimum sentence has already been awarded to the applicant. The learned counsel has contended that the offence for which the applicant has been punished is covered under sub-Clause (1) of clauses (g) of section 16 and thus the proviso is attracted. In my opinion, a bare reading of section 16(1)(a)(i) would show that a case covered by section 2(j) is excluded from the purview of the aforesaid sub-section and the proviso is applicable only when food is adulterated within the meaning of sub-clause (m) of clause (ia) of section 2. In my opinion, a bare reading of section 16(1)(a)(i) would show that a case covered by section 2(j) is excluded from the purview of the aforesaid sub-section and the proviso is applicable only when food is adulterated within the meaning of sub-clause (m) of clause (ia) of section 2. Even otherwise, on the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence of six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- appears to be appropriate and requires no reduction. 5. For the reasons stated above, the present revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall surrender forth with to serve out the sentence. His bail bonds are cancelled.