JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5000/- by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. In default of payment of line he is to undergo six months' R.I. His conviction and sentence has been confirmed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad by his order dated 7th October, 1980. Hence this revision. 2. According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector went to Gur Nanak Ice Factory, Moradnagar on 5th July, 1975,stand found them manufacturing Ice Candy without any licence. He purchased 600 grams of Ice Candy from the accused on payment of 50 paise. It was divided in three parts and packed and sealed in three separate phials in accordance with the formalities provided by law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, who found that the sample of Ice Candy was sweetened with saccharin, the use of which was not permitted. He also observed in his report that the sample contained two coaltardyes-one of them being rohdamine B.C.I. No 45170 of 1956, the use of which was not permitted. After obtaining the requisite sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. The sole point on the merit which has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant is that there has been no compliance with the provisions of Section 10(7) of the P.F. Act which requires two independent witnesses of the locality to be called by the Food Inspector to witness the taking of the sample. 4. Counsel for the applicant has placed before me the statement of the Food Inspector and has argued on its basis that there is nothing to indicate in statement that he attempted to call one or more persons of the locality at the time of the taking of the sample. He has also argued that the Food Inspector was inimical to the accused and has therefore bolstered up the false case. The law is very clear that non-compliance of Section 10(7) of the P.F. Act would not vitiate the trial but if the circumstances of the case justified, it could result in the rejection of the testimony of the Food Inspector. The law is very clear that non-compliance of Section 10(7) of the P.F. Act would not vitiate the trial but if the circumstances of the case justified, it could result in the rejection of the testimony of the Food Inspector. In Baku Lal v. State of Gujarat, 1972 FAC 18, the Supreme Court has very clearly Laid down the above proposition of law. On a careful scrutiny of the statement of the Food Inspector, I do not find any ground for doubting the reliability of his uncorroborated testimony. There is nothing in the statement to indicate that he had adopted any unfair attitude towards the accused, or that he was inimical towards the accused, and has thus set up a false case against him. He has been cross-examined at great length and has denied categorically the vague suggestions made on behalf of the accused that there was any dispute between him and the applicant regarding payment of price of Ice Candy. In my opinion, the statement of the Food Inspector is fully reliable and trustworthy and can be safely acted upon for upholding the conviction of the applicant. 5. Counsel for the applicant has also argued that the report of the Public Analyst indicates that the dyes which are complained of were of orange colour, but the Food Inspector has said that it was green in colour. In my opinion, this is a very unjust criticism of the statement of the Food Inspector. It is clear from the statement of the Food Inspector that the reply given by him in answer to question put to him in cross-examination was that Ice Candy was of several colours which he does not remember, but he does that one of the colours was green. He also stated that he does not remember how much Ice Candy belonged to each colour. He did not weights the different types of Ice Candy on the spot. No direct question was put to the Food Inspector asking him to give out the colour of the Ice Candy of which he had taken a sample from the accused. In my opinion, therefore, the criticism of the learned counsel for the applicant is not at all justified and 1 am not prepared to reject the reliable and straightforward testimony of the Food Inspector which inspires complete confidence. 6. In my opinion, therefore, the criticism of the learned counsel for the applicant is not at all justified and 1 am not prepared to reject the reliable and straightforward testimony of the Food Inspector which inspires complete confidence. 6. In my opinion, therefore, the applicant has been rightly convicted for the offence in question for having used sweetened Ice Candy with saccharine and for colouring it with prohibited coal tar dye rhodamine li.C.I. No. 45170 of 1956 the use of which was not permitted. 7. The applicant's counsel has in the last resort, argued that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the applicant is extremely severe. He has been awarded two years' R.I and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. Before the trial court the applicant was heard on the question of sentence. It was argued there that this is the first offence 'of the applicant and that his wife was sick and he has small children in the family to support, hence it was prayed that a lenient sentence may be awarded. It appears that this submission did not find favour with the trial Court, who awarded a sentence of two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The appellate Court does not appear to have considered this question. May be because it was not argued before him. I however, find that specific ground No. 5 was taken before the Sessions Judge that the punishment was too severe. However, it is open to this court to consider the circumstances of the case in order to determine the appropriate punishment to be inflicted upon the accused. It is not disputed that the applicant is not a previous convict nor was it disputed that The has a large family consisting of his wife and small children to support. It is true that the applicant has sweetened his Ice Candy with saccharin and mixed the prohibited coal tar dye perhaps to make the Ice Candy attractive in colour, but this being the first offence committed by the applicant am of the opinion that a sentence of 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5000/- is excessive. In my opinion having regard to the circumstances, the appropriate sentence which should have been inflicted upon the accused was six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 8. 5000/- is excessive. In my opinion having regard to the circumstances, the appropriate sentence which should have been inflicted upon the accused was six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 8. For the reasons mentioned above the conviction of the applicant for the offence under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is upheld. But the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall suffer 3 months' R.I. The applicant is in jail. He shall continue to remain in jail to serve out his unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment as modified by this Court. The fine if paid in excess already shall be refunded.