JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Mitha Lal has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 27-4-1977 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge Azamgarh, convicting him under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to four years R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to six months further R.I. 2 The prosecution case in brief was that the appellant carries on a grocers shop in Bilariaganj and among other articles sells linseed oil. On 3-12-1975 at 5.15 p.m. Riaz Ahmed (P.W.2) who was the Food Inspector visited his shop in the presence of Fakhre Alam, head-constable. After disclosing his identity he purchased a sample of 375 grams of linseed oil and kept it in three clean containers in equal quantity. They were properly sealed and one of them was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. He reported that it contained 31 9% linseed oil and 68.1% mustard oil and as such was adulterated as edible linseed oil. After obtaining the requisite sanction of the D.M. O.H. a complaint was filed against the appellant. 3 The appellant denied the said charge and gave out that no sample was taken from his shop nor it was kept in clean containers. He also denied that any sealed container was given to him. According to him, the Food Inspector had visited his shop with a police officer and the latter had taken his signatures on certain papers by force. It was further alleged that the Food Inspector did not demand edible linseed oil from him but took nonedible linseed oil. 4. After going through the evidence on the record the learned trial court found the charge satisfactorily made out and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 5. The primary question for consideration is whether the Food Inspector had taken sample of edible linseed oil from the shop of the appellant. This question has arisen because in the trial court as well as in this Court the appellants stand has been that he was never asked to give sample of edible linseed oil. The Food Inspector had demanded only linseed oil. This distinction is necessary because linseed oil is used both for edible and non-edible purposes. The standard is prescribed only for edible linseed oil. In my judgment there is no force in the defence contention. The Food Inspector had demanded only linseed oil. This distinction is necessary because linseed oil is used both for edible and non-edible purposes. The standard is prescribed only for edible linseed oil. In my judgment there is no force in the defence contention. Ex. Ka-I is the notice which the Food Inspector had given to the appellant before taking the sample. In this notice it was clearly mentioned that sample of edible linseed oil was required. It further stated that 375 grams of linseed oil was purchased for Rs. 1.69. It bears signatures of the appellant and there is nothing on the record to warrant that his signatures were obtained by force. Exs. 2 and 3 are the receipt and memo respectively. In these two documents the article purchased was described as linseed oil only. It was not necessary to mention in these papers that it was edible linseed oil because on the representation made by the appellant it was already mentioned in the notice (Ex. Ka-1) that sample of edible linseed oil was taken. 6. The prosecution had examined Fakhre Alarn, head-constable (P.W. 1) and Riaz Ahmed, Food Inspector (P.W. 2) both of whom had stated that sample of edible linseed oil was demanded and was given by the appellant. Therefore, the appellants contention that edible linseed oil was not demanded from him carries no force. 7. It is also argued that the sample purchased by the Food Inspector was found to contain sufficient quantity of mustard oil which is costlier then linseed oil and the appellant, if he was selling edible linseed oil, would not have mixed mustard oil with it. It carries no force because he might have done so as he was selling mustard oil but had mixed sufficient quantity of linseed oil with it. Be that as it may, he had himself represented to the Food Inspector that it was edible linseed oil and given sample of the same. Under rule 44(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules an admixture of two or more edible oils as an edible oil is prohibited. Therefore, when the appellant represented that he was selling edible linseed oil and gave sample of the same he was liable if it was found to be adulterated. 8. As discussed by the learned trial court, the statement of the Food Inspector cannot be discredited on any score. Therefore, when the appellant represented that he was selling edible linseed oil and gave sample of the same he was liable if it was found to be adulterated. 8. As discussed by the learned trial court, the statement of the Food Inspector cannot be discredited on any score. He was corroborated by Fakhre Alam, head-constable. Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that sample of edible linseed oil was collected by the Food Inspector. It is evident from the report of the Public Analyst that the linseed oil was adulterated from the standard prescribed for edible linseed oil. The sample Was taken on 3-12-1975 i.e. prior to the amendment in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Prior to the amendment the minimum sentence was three months and a fine of Rs. 500/- but the imprisonment could be reduced for special and adequate reasons which entitle the appellant to reduction in the sentence. In the first place and the Food Inspector had taken a sample of Zira also from the shop of the appellant on the same date and time and finding it adulterated prosecuted him but he was acquitted on technical grounds. It cannot, therefore, be said that he was a previous convict. Secondly, he is a petty shopkeeper and the offence was committed about five years ago. It will not be worthwhile in these hard times to send him back to jail after a lapse of about five years. He has already remained in jail for about 5 or 6 days. I think the ends of justice would be amply met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine is maintained. 9. The appeal is dismissed subject to the modification that the appellants conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall surrender himself and serve out the sentence of six months R.I. awarded by the trial court. The fine will be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of the record by trial court.