JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - Nathoo Lal has been convicted under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to R.I. for 8 month and fine of Rs. 1500/- in default further R.I. for three months. 2. The prosecution case was that on 20-7-1977 at about 2:30 a.m. the revisionist on his shop in Bhogaon, district Mainpuri was found for sale adulterated oil. A sample taken by the food inspector was of analysis by the public analyst found to contain only approximately 43% oil remaining being mustard oil. Inasmuch as R.I. 41(e) forbids sale mixture or two or more edible oils as an edible oil and also because the stuff was not of the nature, substance or quality which it purposed m h the oil was found to be adulterated. The revisionist's case was of denial The courts below have found the revisionist guilty. 3. Two points were pressed in revision. Firstly it was urged the there can be no malafides on the part of the revisionist in the present case because mustard oil is a costlier oil than Alsi oil. It is not necessary to consider the question of fact involved in this argument because even assuming that mustard oil is as costly as or even costlier than Alsi oil sale of Alsi and mustard oil mixture is unquestionably sale of an adulterated article within the waning of Section 2(ia)(a) of the Act. 4. The next point urged was that mobile food inspector had no jurisdiction to take the sample because he was not appointed for this local area. The trial court has referred to the notification No. 5536(iv) XVI-x-722/55 under which mobile inspectors had been appointed as food inspectors for all the cities, municipalities, cantonments, notified area and rural area which shall include town areas in the whole State. Under section 9 the State Government is entitled to appoint food inspectors for such local areas as may he assigned to them. I cannot agree that under this provision the State Government cannot appoint the food inspector for more than one local area or for the whole State if they so choose. It is a matter within their discretion which would depend on administrative needs and policy. The conviction must, therefore, stand. I would reduce the sentence to the minimum of six months R.I, and Rs. 1000/- fine. 5. The revision is dismissed. It is a matter within their discretion which would depend on administrative needs and policy. The conviction must, therefore, stand. I would reduce the sentence to the minimum of six months R.I, and Rs. 1000/- fine. 5. The revision is dismissed. But the sentence is reduced to R.I. for six months plus a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default further R.I. for two months. The revisionist is on bail in pursuance of this Court's order dated 26-5-80 and shall be got arrested to serve out the sentence according to law immediately.