JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant was prosecuted under Sections 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The prosecution case is that on 29-3-1980 at about 4-30 P.M. the Food Inspector, P.H.C. Chaumuha during his visit of Mela Devi ji, Samari, P.S. Chhata, found the accused selling and exposing for sale "Laddoo Bundike" made of Vanaspati Ghee at his shop in the said Mela. The Food Inspector suspecting the Laddoos to be adulterated purchased Kgs. of the said Laddoos on payment of Rs. 10.50. The sample was thereafter prepared and sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst gave opinion that the sample was adulterated as it was found to have been coloured with prohibited coaltar dye, Aramine. It was also found that the accused was dealing in the sale of sweetmeats without having in his possession any licence as required under rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. After obtaining sanction front the Chief Medical Officer, Mathura, prosecution was launched against the applicant. 3. Before the trial court, the prosecution examined the Food Inspector, R.B. Mathur, and also produced another witness Shri Tota Ram. Shri Vinoy Kumar, Clerk to the Food Inspector, was also examined to prove that he has filled the second bottle containing the sample. The accused-applicant examined two witnesses in his defence. The trial court held the applicant guilty under Section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo one years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The accused was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to further undergo 15 days R.I. under Section 7/16 of the Act read with rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed. 4. In the present revision, learned counsel for the applicant has firstly urged that it was not proved that the applicant was selling `Bundi ke Laddoo". I have carefully gone through the judgments of both the courts below and I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the two courts below are based on correct appraisal of the evidence. The receipt had been duly signed by the accused and coupled with the statement of the Food Inspector, it was established that the applicant was selling "Bundi Ke Laddoo". The contention raised has thus no force. 5. The receipt had been duly signed by the accused and coupled with the statement of the Food Inspector, it was established that the applicant was selling "Bundi Ke Laddoo". The contention raised has thus no force. 5. It has then been urged that there has been no compliance of the copy of the provision of Section 13(2) of the Act. This contention has also no force as a copy of the report of the Public Analyst alongwith the notice was sent to the accused-applicant which could not be served as the applicant had gone out. Later on the copy of the Public Analysts report and the covering notice handed over to the accused-applicant in the court. The applicants having received the necessary documents, it cannot be said that there was any contravention of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. This contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant has also no force. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the sentence of one years R.I. and Rs. 2000/- fine is severe and requires reduction. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case reduce the sentence to the minimum prescribed. The conviction of the applicant under Sections 7/16 of the Act is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of six months R.I. and the sentence of line is reduced to Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months R.I. The accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to further undergo 15 days R.I. under Sections 7/16 of the Act read with Section 50(1) of the Rules framed under the Act. 7. For the reasons stated above, the present revision is dismissed subject to the modification in sentence as indicated above. The applicant is on bail. He will surrender to his bail bonds failing which he will be sent to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to him. His bail bonds are cancelled.