JUDGMENT P.N. Harkauli, J. - Dudh Nath, appellant, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Ilf Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, convicting him under Section 7/16(I)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine the appellant was ordered to undergo six months further rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated that the prosecution case was that on 11-12-1975 the Food Inspector Sri Ram Awadh (PW 1) took a sample of Haldi (Turmeric) from the shop of the appellant and sent it to the Public Analyst who reported that though the sample was 100% sabut Huldi it had been coloured with a prohibited dye (lead chromate). 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and denied that any sample was taken from his shop. 4. In support of its case the prosecution examined the Food Inspector Sri Ram Awadh (PW 1) and a witness Sheo Pujan (PW 2). While the Food Inspector deposed in support of the prosecution case Sheo Pujan (PW 2) stated that no sample was taken in his presence whereupon he was declared hostile. 5. The appellant examined one witness Ram Bali Ram (DW 1) in defence. This witness stated that the Food Inspector had taken a sample from the shop of the appellant, that at that time 40 or 50 persons had collected at the shop of the appellant but the Food Inspector did not take any of these persons as a witness. 6. The learned Sessions Judge believed the evidence of the Food Inspector and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and I see absolutely no reason for not believing the evidence of the Food Inspector, particularly when the appellants own witness had admitted that the Food Inspector had taken a sample from the shop of the appellant. The contention that though a large number of public witnesses were available the Food Inspector did not take them as witnesses and so taking of the sample should be disbelieved, is obviously without any merit, when the defence witness himself admits that a sample was taken by the Food Inspector and the Food Inspector is not shown to have the slightest reason to falsely implicated the appellant. 8. 8. If the evidence of the Food Inspector regarding recovery is believed then, in view of the report of the Public Analyst, there can be no doubt that the charge was made out against the applicant. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant then contended that the appellant may be given the benefit of the First Offenders Probation Act. After considering the circumstances appearing in the prosecutions own evidence 1 am inclined to accede to this request. The record shows that the appellant was an old man of sixty at the time of the occurrence; the Food Inspector himself admits that the appellant was a petty shop-keeper having a total stock of half a kilogram of Haldi (turmeric), and the report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample contained nothing but pure Haldi and the only offence was that it was coloured with a prohibited dye. It would be wholly unreasonable to expect that this petty shop-keeper having such a small shop in a remote village would have known whether the dye was a prohibited dye or not. In these circumstances I am clearly of the opinion that this is a fit case for giving the benefit of the First Offenders Probation Act. 10. Accordingly, while the appeal is dismissed and the conviction of the appellant is maintained, it is ordered that the appellant shall be released on probation on his furnishing a personal bond for Rs. 1000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, undertaking to appear and serve out the sentence whenever called upon to do so during the next one year and in the meantime to maintain the peace and be of good behaviour. If, however, the appellant fails to furnish the bonds as directed above within one month from the date of the receipt of the record in the lower court or such further time as the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh may allow, the appellant shall undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.