JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Parbhudayal has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 24-8-1977 passed by the IIIrd Addl. Sessions' Judge, Asamgarh, convicting him under section 7/16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine he was awarded six months further imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case, in brief was that in December 1975 a Special Drive was conducted in the District of Azamgarh to check adulteration in food articles. Batches of Food Inspectors visited various markets of the District and took samples of articles of food for analysis. In that connection Nath Ji Prasad, Food Inspector, Thekma was deputed to go to Bilariyaganj Bazzar. On 3-12-1975 he went there and visited the kerana shop of the appellant. He found Kesari dal being exposed for sale at his shop. After disclosing his identity the Food Inspector asked him to sell a sample of Kesari dal for analysis 750 Grams of Kesari dal was purchased on payment of price and its necessary documents were prepared. Dal was kept in equal quantity in three phials which were properly sealed. One of them was sent to the Pubic Analyst for examination. On 1-3-1976 the Public Analyst reported that it was 100% Kesari Dal which was injurious to health and was prohibited for human consumption. The sample contained certain poisonous elements also. After obtaining sanction of the Medical Officer of Health prosecution was launched against the appellant. A copy of the Public Analysts report was sent to the appellant by registered post. On these facts the appellant was tried as aforesaid. 3. The appellant denied the said charge and gave out that Kesari dal was kept at his shop not for human consumption but as an animal food. According to him it was mentioned on the bag containing Kesari dal that it was meant for cattle. 4. After going through the evidence on the record the learned trial court believed the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced the appellant 5 as mentioned above. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have given , my anxious consideration to the whole matter. There is no controversy that the appellant was exposing for sale Kesari dal at his shop and its an sample was I purchased by the Inspector. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have given , my anxious consideration to the whole matter. There is no controversy that the appellant was exposing for sale Kesari dal at his shop and its an sample was I purchased by the Inspector. There is also no controversy that use of Kesari dal is prohibited for human consumption and whoever sells it for that purpose is liable to be punished under the Act. 6. The crucial point for consideration is whether the appellant was keeping it as an animal food or for human consumption. Nathji Prasad, Food Inspector, narrated the entire story and categorically denied that the appellant had told him that the dal was meant for use of the cattle. Bansi I (P.W.2) fully corroborated him on this point. He knew the appellant from before. From the side of the appellant one Dr. Bans Gopal was produced . who gave out that at the time the sample was collected he was present at the ' shop of the appellant and that the appellant had given out that; Kesari dal was being kept for sale as animal food and not for human consumption. The learned trial court carefully analysed the statement and rejected his testimony, In my judgment he made a correct appraisement of the evidence. The statements of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity and satisfactorily establish that the Kesasi dal was being sold for human consumption I and not as animal food. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that if the dal was meant as food for cattle and not for human consumption I no offence was committed. It carries no substance in view of Notification No. 1632/XVI-l 1-1511/1961 dated May 11, 1961 Published on page 877 parti of the IJ.P. Gazette on May 12, 1961. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that if the dal was meant as food for cattle and not for human consumption I no offence was committed. It carries no substance in view of Notification No. 1632/XVI-l 1-1511/1961 dated May 11, 1961 Published on page 877 parti of the IJ.P. Gazette on May 12, 1961. The notification reads :- "In pursuance of the provisions contained in rule 44(A) of the P.F.A. Rules 1955 the Government of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to notify that with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the official Gazette, no person in the State shall sell or offer or expose for sale or, have in his possession for purposes of sale, under any description or for use as an ingredient in the preparation of any article of food intended for sale : (a) Kesari grain (b) Kesari dal and its produce " The aforesaid makes it clear that mere possession of Kesari dal for purpose of sale under any circumstance is an offence. The learned trial court has analysed this aspect of the matter in great datail and in my judgment rightly. The appellant was not justified in keeping the Kesari dal at his shop for any purpose. 8. There is no controversy that the sample collected contained 100% Kesari dal. The appellant was not competent to expose it for sale for any purpose. In this case it was established that he was exposing it for sale for human consumption. Thereafter, he clearly committed an offence punishable under section 7/16 of, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 9. So for as the question of sentence is concerned it is true that the appellant has remained in custody hardly for a few hours because the day he was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge he was released on interim bail. Thereafter he obtained bail by this Court. However, there are certain circumstances which require that the appellant should not be severely dealt with. This offence was committed before the Amending Act 34 of 1976 came into force. The appellants son has filed an affidavit to show that the appellant is about 60 years of age at present. Besides, he is alleged to be a patient of Tuberculosis and undergoing treatment. He has already closed his shop. This offence was committed before the Amending Act 34 of 1976 came into force. The appellants son has filed an affidavit to show that the appellant is about 60 years of age at present. Besides, he is alleged to be a patient of Tuberculosis and undergoing treatment. He has already closed his shop. Considering the long lapse of time that has elapsed since the raid was made and the condition of the appellants health I think the ends of justice would be amply met if his sentence is reduced to the period of custody he has already suffered and to a fine of Rs. 3000/- (rupees three thousands). Such a view was also taken by a Full Bench of this Court in the State of U.P. v. Babu Lal 1977 (II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases page 28 in similar circumstances. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The appellants conviction under the aforesaid count is maintained but the sentence is reduced to the imprisonment he has already suffered and to a fine of Rs. 3000/- (Rs. three thousands) and in default of its payment to six months rigorous imprisonment, which the learned counsel for the appellant concedes will not amount to enhancement of sentence. The fine will be deposited within three months front the date of receipt of the record by the trial court failing which he will surrender himself in Court or be taken into custody to serve out the alternative punishment.