JUDGMENT P.N. Harkauli, J. - Madan, appellant, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge Azamgarh, convicting him under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to three 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. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6-12-1975 Nathji Prasad (P.W. 1) the Food Inspector took a sample of linseed oil from the shop of the appellant and upon analysis by the Public Analyst it was found to be adulterated inasmuch as the sample contained only 13% of linseed oil while the rest was mustard oil. 3. The appellant admitted that the Food Inspector took the sample from his shop but did not admit that it was adulterated. 4. In order to prove the taking of the sample the prosecution examined the Pood Inspector Nathji Prasad (P.W. 1) and Constable Durbal Rai (P.W. 2) who had gone with the Food Inspector at the time of the raid. In order to show that it was adulterated the prosecution relied upon the report of the Public Analyst which shows that the sample contained 13% linseed oil and the remaining was mustard oil. 5. The appellant did not produce any witness in defence. Believing the prosecution evidence the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 6. I have gone through the evidence and have heard learned counsel for the parties and 1 do not see any reason to disagree with the view taken be the learned Sessions Judge. The taking of the sample is proved by the evidence of the Food Inspector and Constable Durbal Rai. Taking of the sample is also admitted by the appellant. The fact that the sample was adulterated is proved by the report of the Public Analyst. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant only prayed for a reduction of the sentence. He pointed out that at that very time the Food Inspector had taken the sample of another article from the shop of the appellant and the appellant had already been convicted and sentenced for that and he had served out the sentence passed in that case. The learned counsel for the appellant only prayed for a reduction of the sentence. He pointed out that at that very time the Food Inspector had taken the sample of another article from the shop of the appellant and the appellant had already been convicted and sentenced for that and he had served out the sentence passed in that case. The learned counsel said that as a result of that imprisonment the appellant had become not only physically infirm but had also lost his balance of mind. The learned counsel said that considering that both the samples were taken in the same raid and that the appellant had already suffered sufficiently in*connection with the other conviction, the sentence of the appellant in this case should be reduced to fine only. After giving careful thought to all the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 8. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is affirmed but the sentence is reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- only. In default of payment of fine the appellant will undergo three months further rigorous imprisonment. The appellant is on bail. He will be taken info custody to serve out the sentence.