JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Kewal Ram has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 31-10-1977 passed by the Vth Addl. Sessions Judge Azamgarh, convicting him under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to six months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to two months further rigorous imprisonment. 2. In brief the facts are that a special anti-adulteration drive was organised by Dr. P.B. Ghosh, Dy. Chief Medical Officer (Health), Azamgarh on 10-12-1975. In that drive Mohan Lal, Food Inspector (P.W.2) was sent to Mohamadabad town to take samples. He reached the shop of the appellant at about 1. P.M. and found him at his kirana shop on which he was exposing for sale various spices including Zeera and mustard oil. The Food Inspector purchased 450 gms. of Zeera for Rs. 5.6 and obtained a receipt of the price of Zeera from the appellant. It is Ext. Ka. 1, which is duly signed by the appellant. The sample of mustard oil was also taken from the appellant's shop, after giving its notice to him. The samples of Zeera and mustard oil were sent to the Public Analyst who found that mustard oil conformed to the prescribed standard while Zeera was adulterated. After obtaining requisite sanction a complaint was filed against the appellant. 3. The appellant denied the said charge and gave out that the sample of oil was purchased from his shop and his signatures were obtained on various papers in that connection. No sample of Zeera was purchased from him. According to him when the sample of oil conformed to the prescribed standard the Food Inspector added Zeera in the papers in order to get him falsely implicated. 4. After going through the evidence on the record the learned trial court believed the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 5. A number of points have been urged before me. In the first place it is argued that the prosecution should have proved sale of Zeera to the Food Inspector by independent evidence but there is the solitary evidence of the Food Inspector which should have been rejected by the trial court. 5. A number of points have been urged before me. In the first place it is argued that the prosecution should have proved sale of Zeera to the Food Inspector by independent evidence but there is the solitary evidence of the Food Inspector which should have been rejected by the trial court. There is not much force in this contention because in Prem Ballabh v. State 1976 (11) FAC 53 it has been held that there is no R.I. of law that conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of the Food Inspector. It is only out of sense of caution that the courts insist that the testimony of the Food Inspector should be corroborated by some independent witness. Conviction cannot be assailed on the ground that it rested merely on the evidence of the Food Inspector.' In the instant case the testimony of the Food Inspector cannot be attacked on any ground. The witness in whose presence the sample was taken became a victim of Tuberculosis and had gone out in connection with his treatment. The Food Inspector could not find out his whereabouts. Hence it cannot be said that there was any oblique motive in withholding him. It came in the statement of the Food Inspector that persons of the locality were called but they refused to become witnesses in the case. Obviously the Food Inspector could not have compelled them. In these circumstances his statement cannot be lightly brushed aside. 6. In the second place it has been urged that only the sample of mustard oil was taken by the Food Inspector and Zeera was added when the sample of mustard oil conformed to the prescribed standard. The learned trial court has repelled this contention on plausible ground. Ext. Ka 1 is a receipt which bears signatures of the appellant. It clearly mentions that 450 grams of Zeera was purchased by the Food Inspector for Rs. 5.60. In the notice Zeera is mentioned at No. 1 and mustard oil at No. 2. There is nothing in the document which may raise suspicion that the word Zeera was added afterwards. Therefore, even this contention carries no force. 7. Lastly, it is argued that sufficient quantity of Zeera was not sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. 5.60. In the notice Zeera is mentioned at No. 1 and mustard oil at No. 2. There is nothing in the document which may raise suspicion that the word Zeera was added afterwards. Therefore, even this contention carries no force. 7. Lastly, it is argued that sufficient quantity of Zeera was not sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. It has also no force because in view of State of Kerala v. Alasserry Mohammad 1978 (I) FAC 145 it is for the Public Analyst to see whether the sample sent to him is sufficient for his analysis or not. If he finds it insufficient, there is an end of the matter. If, however, he finds it sufficient but due to one reason or the other either because of further tests or otherwise it is shown that the report of the Public Analyst based upon the short quantity sent to him is not trustworthy or beyond doubt the case may fail. If the object is not frustrated and is squarely and justifiably achieved without any shadow of doubt then there is no reason why the report should be thrown out on technical grounds which have no substance. In the instant case the quantity of Zeera sent to the Public Analyst was found to be sufficient for analysis. After examining it he found it to be adulterated. There is no reason to doubt the worth of his report. Hence even this contention has no force. 8. It is evident from the report of the Public Analyst that the sample contained 7.1% organic extraneous matters, 0.66% inorganic extraneous matters and 92.24% Zeera. According to the standard prescribed the quantity of Zeera should have been 93%. In this manner there was only marginal difference. As held in Umedmal v. State of Maharashtra 1979 (I) FAC 194 if adulteration found is of very marginal nature the sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone and fine. In the instant case the sample was taken in 1975 i.e. prior to the amendment Act of 1976. The appellant is a petty shop keeper and has remained in jail for about twenty five days. Considering the marginal nature of adulteration found in the sample the ends of justice will be amply met if his sentence is educed to the period already undergone and to a fine of Rs. The appellant is a petty shop keeper and has remained in jail for about twenty five days. Considering the marginal nature of adulteration found in the sample the ends of justice will be amply met if his sentence is educed to the period already undergone and to a fine of Rs. 400/- and in default of its payment to four months' rigorous imprisonment. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to the modification that the appellant's conviction under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is confirmed but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and to a fine of Rs. 400/- and in default of its payment to four months rigorous imprisonment. The fine will be deposited within two months from the date of receipt of the record by the trial court failing which the appellant will surrender himself in court or be taken into custody to serve out his sentence.