JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 3 months' R.I., and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month's R.I. His conviction has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge Rampur, but the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him has been enhanced to 6 months' R. I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. I have also carefully scrutinised the relevant documents on the record of the case. The prosecution story is that at about noon time on 7th December, 77, the Food Inspector took a sample of Sarso oil from the shop of the applicant in village Saidjani, P.S. Sahabad in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. His report disclosed that the sample was adulterated. It contained Til oil in excess of 15 red units permissible under the Rules. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was no compliance of Section 13(2) of the P.F.A. Act and as such the prosecution is vitiated. This point was raised before the Sessions Judge in appeal and has been dealt with by him. I have perused the statement of the Food Inspector which indicates that the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused from the office of the Chief Medical Officer. This statement has not been cross-examined on behalf of the accused. I also find that a specific question was put to the accused that the report of the Public Analyst was sent to him under registered cover. To this question he has given an answer in the affirmative. The court below has thus correctly held that there has been compliance of Section 13(2) of the P.F.A. Act. In my opinion, there is no merit in this contention. 4. It is next argued that the adulteration in the mustard oil was due to the fact that the same Palli was being used for taking out mustard oil and Til Oil. In my opinion, there is no merit in this contention. 4. It is next argued that the adulteration in the mustard oil was due to the fact that the same Palli was being used for taking out mustard oil and Til Oil. It is true that in the cross-examination, the question has been put to the Food Inspector that only one Palli was being used for taking out Mustard Oil and Til Oil, at the shop but this to my mind would not provide any justification in law for a mixture of Sarso Oil and Til Oil. R.I. 44(e) framed under the P.F. Act makes it an offence to mix two edible oils. The way, or the method by which they are mixed, or the reason why the mixture has been affected, is of no consequence. A bare mixture of two edible oils is an offence per se. Therefore, the explanation which has been given will not absolve the applicant from the legal consequences of such an infringement of the Rules. Under the proviso to R.I. 44(e) we find that a standard for tolerance test has been Laid down that a mixture of Till oil with Sarso Oil should not exceed more than 5% red units in ice m. cell. In the report of the Public Analyst it is clearly mentioned that the sample of Sarso oil contained Till Oil, in excess of 15 per cent red units. In the charge which has been framed against the accused also, this fact has been clearly mentioned. There is no error in the charge at all, as has been argued by the applicant's counsel. The applicant has not been taken by surprise at all. The charge indicates that the accused was offering mustard oil which contained a mixture of till oil, which on analysis was found to be in excess of 15% red units and thus the sample was adulterated. For the reasons given above. I am of the opinion that the applicant has been rightly found guilty of the offence of adulteration punishable under section 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act. 5. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, it has rightly been enhanced, by the Sessions Judge, because the minimum sentence provided under amended law after 1973 is six months' R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The offence in question is dated 7th December, 1977. 5. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, it has rightly been enhanced, by the Sessions Judge, because the minimum sentence provided under amended law after 1973 is six months' R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The offence in question is dated 7th December, 1977. The amended Act was thus applicable. The trial court had erroneously awarded a sentence of 3 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, which has been rightly corrected by the Sessions Judge. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 6. There is no merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court on 6th June, 1980 is hereby vacated. Applicant shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence.