JUDGMENT P.N. Goel, J. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 12-3-1975 passed by Sri S.B. Singh, Corporation Magistrate Kanpur acquitting the Respondent of the offences punishable u/s 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. Ram Autar Respondent carried on a shop in premises No. 125/6 Block K Govind Nagar in the City of Kanpur. He also used to live in this shop. 3. According to the prosecution Sri V.S. Misra, Food Inspector (PW 1) took sample of mustard oil from the Respondent on 23-11-1972 at 9.50 A.M. from the above mentioned premises. The sample was divided into three parts - one part was sent to the Public Analyst. On 23-1-1973 Public Analyst gave report that the oil contained 30.02% lin-seed oil (Ex. Ka. 4). Thereafter the Respondent was prosecuted on two counts: (1) The Respondent did not have a license to sell mustard oil and thereby committed breach of Rule 50, and (2) The mustard oil in question was adulterated. 4. Defence of the Respondent was that he was not used to deal in mustard oil, that he had brought about 4 Kgms. oil in a tin for his consumption, that the Food Inspector forcibly took sample from the said mustard oil, that to take the sample the Food Inspector obtained a measure from the neighboring shop and that, therefore, the oil in question was found adulterated. 5. The Magistrate found that the Respondent was not a dealer in mustard oil, that, therefore, it was not necessary for him to take license under Rule 50, that the prosecution was bad for want of sanction by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, that the prosecution had not made compliance of Rules 7 and 18 and that the prosecution had also not made compliance of Rule 9(j). On these grounds the magistrate acquitted the Respondent. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has been heard at length and the entire record has been perused carefully. The Respondent's counsel did not come up to support the order acquitting the Respondent. 7. The Appellant's counsel urged that the learned Magistrate was not justified in acquitting the Respondent for the reasons given by him. 8. It will be seen that the learned magistrate found that there was no sanction for prosecution by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari. The Respondent's counsel did not come up to support the order acquitting the Respondent. 7. The Appellant's counsel urged that the learned Magistrate was not justified in acquitting the Respondent for the reasons given by him. 8. It will be seen that the learned magistrate found that there was no sanction for prosecution by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari. He referred to a decision of this Court in Maize v. State Criminal Reference No. 164 of 1972 decided on 14-3-1973. In this reference the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector. He was not authorized to file complaint either by the Government or by Nagar Swasthya Adhikari. Therefore, the reference made by the Additional District Magistrate Matura was accepted and proceedings were quashed. But this case has no application to the present case. In the present case complaint was filed by Nagar Swasthya Adhikari himself. The learned Magistrate wrote in the first paragraph of the judgment that the case started on the complaint of the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was wholly in the wrong in saying that there was no sanction for prosecution by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari. There fore, the magistrate was not justified in holding that the complaint had been filed without any proper sanction. 9. The magistrate further found that the Respondent was not a dealer in mustard oil, and as such it was not necessary for him to obtain license Under Rule 50. This rule lays down that no person shall manufacture, sell, stock, distribute or exhibit for sale any of the articles of food except under a license. In case in hand Sri V.S. Misra, Food Inspector purported to state he went to the oil and ghee shop of the Respondent, that he saw him selling mustard oil and that he did not possess a license to sell the same. He further stated that there was mustard oil about 4 Kgms. in a tin. Sri Misra was Food Inspector of the area in question from January 1972. He had not taken any sample of oil or ghee from the shop of the Respondent prior to the date of occurrence, i.e. 23-11-1972. He did not see the records of Nagar Mahapalika whether the Respondent had any license of selling eatables. The Respondent clearly stated that he was not selling mustard oil at his shop on the date in question. He did not see the records of Nagar Mahapalika whether the Respondent had any license of selling eatables. The Respondent clearly stated that he was not selling mustard oil at his shop on the date in question. He further stated that he had no license to sell oil because he was not used to deal in oil. The Respondent examined his neighbor Ganesh Prasad Srivastava (DW 1). He stated that there was no oil shop in premises No. 125/6 in K Block. There is no corroboration of the evidence of the Food Inspector. Therefore, in the instant case it cannot be held that the Respondent used to sell mustard oil. It will be noticed that the Respondent clearly stated that he had brought 4 Kgms. of mustard oil for his own use and that the Food Inspector forcibly took sample from the said oil. 10. In view of the material on record it cannot be held that the Respondent used to sell mustard oil, and, therefore, the magistrate has rightly held that the Respondent did not require a license in this respect. 11. The Magistrate then found that the prosecution had not made compliance of mandatory Rules 7 and 18. Rule 7 lays down the duties of a Public Analyst. It is his duty to compare the seals of the container and the outer cover with the specimen seal. After analysis it is his duty to send two copies of his report. Rule 18 lays down that a specimen seal will be sent to the Public Analyst separately. The magistrate has stated that the Food Inspector had no-where stated that sample seal was sent separately to the Public Analyst. This observation is clearly belied by the report Ex. Ka. 4 of the Public Analyst. In this report the Public Analyst clearly stated that he found the seal intact and that the seal fixed on the container tallied with the specimen seal separately sent to him. In this way it is evident that Rules 7 and 18 were complied with. The magistrate was not justified in holding that these rules were not complied with. 12. The learned Magistrate lastly found that mandatory Rule 9(j) was not complied with. Rule 9 enumerates duties of a Food Inspector. In this way it is evident that Rules 7 and 18 were complied with. The magistrate was not justified in holding that these rules were not complied with. 12. The learned Magistrate lastly found that mandatory Rule 9(j) was not complied with. Rule 9 enumerates duties of a Food Inspector. Clause (j) of this rule requires the Food Inspector to send by hand or registered post a copy of the report received from the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken. The magistrate has observed that on the report of the Public Analyst the Food Inspector had noted that copy of the report was sent to the accused but during cross-examination he admitted that there was no receipt (Postal) or any acknowledgment from the accused on the file of the criminal case. It appears that the magistrate completely ignored the statement of Sri V.S. Misra, Food Inspector in examination-in-chief. He clearly stated in examination-in-chief that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the Respondent by post, Registered A.D. No. 154 dated 16-3-1973. In cross-examination he no doubt stated that the postal receipt and acknowledgment relating to the sending of the report of the Public Analyst to the Respondent were not on file. He added that the officials of the office will know about them. The Respondent, after the statement of the Food Inspector, was examined u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure. The Respondent did not state that he had not received a copy of the report of the Public Analyst. Thus there remained the unchallenged statement on oath of Sri V.S. Misra, Food Inspector that copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the Respondent by registered post. He gave out the number and date of the postal receipt. He noted this fact on the report of the Public Analyst. In these circumstances it cannot be held that Rule 9(j) was not complied with. The magistrate has clearly committed an error in holding that Rule 9(j) was not complied with. 13. The position that follows from the above is that the Respondent cannot be punished for not having a license and that he can be punished for selling adulterated mustard oil to the Food Inspector. The magistrate was not justified in acquitting the Respondent. The magistrate has clearly committed an error in holding that Rule 9(j) was not complied with. 13. The position that follows from the above is that the Respondent cannot be punished for not having a license and that he can be punished for selling adulterated mustard oil to the Food Inspector. The magistrate was not justified in acquitting the Respondent. The Respondent is liable to be convicted u/s 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This section provides minimum sentence of six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 14. It will, however, be noticed that the sample was taken about 8 years ago. The magistrate acquitted the Respondent in March 1975 i.e. more than 5 years ago. In the year 1975, the Appellant was aged about 25 years. It is evident that the Food Inspector had not taken sample of any article from his shop prior to the date of occurrence. The Respondent was not used to deal in mustard oil. It appears that on the date of occurrence, he had brought 4 Kgms. mustard of perhaps for his own use. The Respondent was living in premises in which he was carrying on the shop. Hence it appears that the Respondent is a man of humble means. As the mustard oil in a small tin was at his shop the Food Inspector took its sample. There is no previous conviction to the credit of the Appellant. The mustard oil in question contained linseed oil only and no article which would have injuriously affected the health of the purchasers. In all these circumstances it would not be unjust if the Respondent is given benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the U.P. First Offender's Probation Act, 1938. 15. For what has been discussed above, the appeal is allowed and the Respondent Ram Autar is convicted u/s 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Instead of passing sentence under the said section, the Respondent is ordered to be released u/s 4 of the U.P. First Offender's Probation Act 1938 on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 500/- to appear and receive sentence in this Court within one year of this day and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behavior. The Respondent will furnish the bond before the court below within 3 months of this day. 500/- to appear and receive sentence in this Court within one year of this day and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behavior. The Respondent will furnish the bond before the court below within 3 months of this day. In case the Respondent does not furnish the bond within the said period, the court below will intimate this Court. The Respondent will be informed of this order by registered post as early as possible and a copy of this order be sent down to the court below.