JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - Revisionist Ram Nath has been convicted under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to R1. for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default further R.I. for one month, The prosecution case was that the revisionist was found offering for sale adulterated Safed Zira on 1-9-77 at about 1 P.M. on his shop in town Susmara Bahad. A sample taken by the food inspector was on analysis found by the public analyst per his report dated 26-8-77 to contain organic extraneous matter 10.8% and inorganic extraneous matter 0.1% total extraneous matter 10.9%. The revisionist had the sample sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory and the Report of the Director, dated 28-8-78 is that the extraneous matter was 9.2% and the foreign edible seeds 0.1% by weight. The Courts below held that the Zira was offered for sale and was adulterated. 2. In revision the first point urged was that the Central Food Laboratory report cannot be the basis for conviction when it does not specify the organic and inorganic extraneous matter separately. In view of the notice after A.05.23 of the Appendix B the limit of extraneous matter inorganic plus organic is 7% of which the organic should not exceed 2%. In this case the only defect was that the extraneous matter was in excess of the maximum prescribed so the omission to specify the percentage inorganic and organic extraneous matter separately is immaterial and this omission in the Director's report cannot be regarded as a defect. 3. It was then urged that the case is covered by the proviso to Section 2 Clause (m) because Zira is a primary food and the quality or purity has fallen below the prescribed standard solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency" within the meaning of the proviso. If this argument could prevail the article will not be deemed to be adulterated under the proviso. It is, however, not possible to accept that the purity falls below the prescribed standard solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency. To bring the case within the proviso both the conditions must co-exist, first the variation from the prescribed standard in purity or quality must be due to only natural causes and secondly the variation must be beyond the control of human agency. To bring the case within the proviso both the conditions must co-exist, first the variation from the prescribed standard in purity or quality must be due to only natural causes and secondly the variation must be beyond the control of human agency. Since Zira is required to be sold after removal of extraneous matter beyond a maximum limit if there is any deficiency in removal of the extraneous matter, it cannot be regarded as a case of beyond the control of human agency. At any rate this would be so unless in a particular case evidence could be brought that for certain reasons, it was not possible to further clean the Zira by removing extraneous matter so as to bring the same within the prescribed limit. A case where the vendors stopped cleaning before reaching the required purity does not fall under proviso because it can be taken that with a little more effort and care he could have achieved the prescribed standard. This argument too cannot, therefore, prevail. 4. The revisionist has already been given benefit of proviso to first proviso of Section 16(1). 5. The revision is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the revisionist are confirmed. He is on bail under this Court's order dated 18-8-80 and shall be got arrested immediately to serve out the sentence according to law.