JUDGMENT B. N. Katju, J. - Ram Bilas has filed this appeal against the judgment of III Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh dated.16-1-1978 passed in S. T. No. 286 of 1976, convicting him under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a Fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo six months R I. 2. The case of the prosecution is that Mohan Lal Gupta (P. W. 2) Food Inspector of Rani Ki Sarai, purchased 750 Gms. of Dal Arhar from the shop of the appellant in Mohammadabad Gohna market for Rs. 1.80 P. and obtained the signature of the appellant on receipt Ext. Ka-1. He thereafter prepared a notice in form 6 in duplicate and gave a copy of it to the appellant after obtaining his signature on its duplicate copy Ext. Ka-2. He divided the Dal in three equal parts and sealed them in three phials. He gave one of the sealed phials to the appellant and another sealed phial was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample of the Dal was coloured with dye the use of which was prohibited. The sample of Dal was thus adulterated. 3. The prosecution examined three witnesses to connect the appellant with the crime, namely Ramraj (P.W. 1) Mohan Lal Gupta (P.W. 2) and Chandrama Rai (P.W. 3). 4. The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he was implicated falsely. It was further stated by him that the Food Inspector took Dal from his shop and obtained his thumb impression on a number of papers and the phials were not sealed. The Dal, which he was selling had been purchased by him from the market and was not coloured by him. 5. The trial court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned earlier. 6. Mohan Lal Gupta (P.W. 2) narrated the prosecution case as mentioned earlier. His evidence is supported by the receipt Ext. Ka-1 and notice in form 6 Ext. Ka-2 He had no previous enmity with the appellant. There was, therefore, no reason for him to implicate the appellant falsely. 6. Mohan Lal Gupta (P.W. 2) narrated the prosecution case as mentioned earlier. His evidence is supported by the receipt Ext. Ka-1 and notice in form 6 Ext. Ka-2 He had no previous enmity with the appellant. There was, therefore, no reason for him to implicate the appellant falsely. Nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to shake his credit. His evidence is, therefore, reliable. 7. Ramraj (P.W. 1) corroborated the evidence of Mohan Lal Gupta (P.W. 2). It is true that he was the Sanitary Inspector, but this is not sufficient to reject his testimony. He is also independent and there was no previous enmity between him and the appellant. Nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to shake his credit. His evidence is, therefore, reliable. 8. Chandrama Rai (P. W. 3) was the clerk in the office of the District Medical Officer of Health, Azamgarh. He deposed that two sealed bottles containing samples of Dal purchased from the appellant were brought to his office and he sent one of the bottles along with the memo, and one memo separately, to the Public Analyst for analysis. He is independant and nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to shake his credit. His evidence is also reliable. 9. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the sample seal was not sent separately to the Public Analyst when the sample of Dal was sent to him for analysis. This contention cannot be accepted as it is clear from the report of the Public Analyst that the Dal sent to him was found to be properly sealed and the seal of the container tallied with the sample impression of the seal sent separately by the Food Inspector. It may also be mentioned that it was stated by Mohan Lal Gupta (P.W. 2) that he had put his seal on both the memos and the evidence of Chandrama Rai (P.W. 3) shows that one of the memos was sent along with the phial containing the sample of Dal and the other was sent separately. In these circumstances, Rules 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was complied with. 10. The prosecution has thus established the guilt of the appellant. He was, therefore, rightly convicted by the trial court under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In these circumstances, Rules 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was complied with. 10. The prosecution has thus established the guilt of the appellant. He was, therefore, rightly convicted by the trial court under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Considering the fact that the Dal which was sold by the appellant, was coloured with a prohibited dye, the sentence awarded to him is not excessive. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The fine shall be deposited within three months of the receipt of the record by the trial court. The interim order dated 18-1-1978 is vacated.