JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant was prosecuted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The prosecution case was that on 5-11-1977 the Food Inspector Suresh Kumar Singh inspected the shop of the accused-applicant and found him selling food stuffs like edible oil, spices, floor, rice, pulses etc, without obtaining any licence under the Act. 3. Before the trial court the prosecution examined Suresh Kumar Singh, Food Inspector as P.W.1 and Brij Bhushan Raj, Health Inspector as P.W. 2 to prove its case. On the basis of the testimony of the aforesaid two witnesses the trial court found the applicant guilty under section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Feeling aggrieved the applicant preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. 4. In the present revision the learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the prosecution has not been able to prove the sale of food stuffs by the applicant. It has been streneously urged that the Food Inspector should have prepared an inventory of the articles found in the shop and should have also mentioned the names of the persons to whom the food stuffs were being sold. I have gone through the two judgments and in my opinion, the findings recorded by the two courts below on the aforesaid question is based on correct appraisal of evidence. The two witnesses produced by the prosecution fully proved the prosecution case that the applicant was selling food stuffs without obtaining licence under the Act. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant has thus no force. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that in the present case the last proviso to section 16(1) applied which says:- "Provided further that if the offence is under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) and is with respect to the contravention of any rule made under clause (a) or clause (g) of sub-section (1A)of section 23 or under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 24, the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees". The learned counsel appearing for the state has fairly conceded that the aforesaid proviso will apply to the present case and that there is no minimum sentence of imprisonment or fine applicable to the present case. 6. The learned counsel on the question of sentence urged that the incident took place about 3 years back and that the applicant is a petty shopkeeper in village Jamuni and is a poor man. It has also been urged that the applicant has remained in jail for more than a week. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence of imprisonment deserves to be reduced from six months R.I. to the period already undergone and sentence of fine from Rs. 1000/- to 500/- 7. In the result, while maintaining the conviction of the applicant under section 7/16 of the Act his sentence of imprisonment is reduced from 6 months R.I. to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine from Rs. 1000/- to 500/-. In default of payment of fine the applicant will undergo R.I. for a period of three months. The applicant is given three months time from the date of the receipt of the record by the trial court to deposit the fine. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.