JUDGMENT R.B. Lal, J. - Raja Ram, who has been convicted for an offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- has preferred this revision. 2. The Food Inspector Sri M.L. Gupta visited the shop of the applicant.on 19-7-1977 at about 12-30 P.M. and took a sample of whole haldi bulbs according to rules. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was insect damaged haldi, by 61.67 per cent and also had living and dead insects. The damaged haldi exceeded the maximum permissible limit of five per cent. The Chief Medical Officer accorded sanction for the prosecution of the applicant. The stand of the applicant was that the haldi was not meant for human consumption. 3. The Magistrate found the applicant guilty of an offence under section 7/16 of the Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/-. The applicant appealed to the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, but reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 4. The applicant has not felt satisfied and hence this revision. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the bulbs of haldi are Primary food as defined in clause (xiii-a) of section 2 of the Act. The proviso to clause (m) of section 2 was applicable to this case. The damage to the haldi was solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency and, therefore, the haldi could not be deemed to be adulterated. The insects could grow in the haldi on account of natural causes which were beyond the control of the applicant. This contention of the learned counsel is interesting but without any force. In order to attract the aforesaid proviso, two conditions are necessary, the first that the deterioration in the quality or purity of the food article should be solely due to natural causes and second, that this should be beyond the control of human agency. The second condition is very important and envisages that a trader selling a primary food must take all necessary precautions to avoid its deterioration on account of natural causes. The second condition is very important and envisages that a trader selling a primary food must take all necessary precautions to avoid its deterioration on account of natural causes. In the case of primary food which is likely to become insect infested, the trader should use necessary care by applying permissible chemicals or by keeping such food away from moisture and other conditions which give rise to insects or expose such articles of food to sun periodically, to prevent growth of insects. If this is not done, the second condition cannot be said to have been fulfilled. In this case there is nothing to show that necessary precautions were taken and even then insects grew in the sample for reasons beyond the control of human agency. In my opinion, the applicant cannot claim benefit of the proviso to clause (m) in this case. 5. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the sample was taken on 19-7-1977 and was analysed by the Public Analyst on 25-8-1977. It was rainy season. If on 19-7-1977 the quantity of insect damaged haldi was five per cent, this damage could grow to 66 per cent in the course of about 5 weeks which elapsed up to 25-8-1977. In this connection, the learned counsel has referred to the statement of Tika Ram (P.W. 3) who stated in cross-examination that apparently the haldi appeared to be clean "saf suthari lag rahi thi." The learned counsel has also referred to the decision in the case of R.L. Gupta v. The State, (1979 (II) FAC 91) wherein it was held that insects could grow in the sample during the period which elapsed between the taking of the sample and analysis by the Public Analyst. 6. The statement of the Food Inspector Sri M.L. Gupta shows that the sample of haldi bulbs was placed in clean and dry bottles of glass which were duly and tightly sealed. He did not say that the outer appearance of the sample Haldi appeared to be good. He said that he suspected the haldi to be milawati and, therefore, had taken its sample. It was only Tika Ram (P.W.3) who said that the outer appearance of the haldi appeared saf suthari. Hence, it cannot be said that at the time of taking of the sample on 19-7-1977 the Haldi was not insects infested. 7. He said that he suspected the haldi to be milawati and, therefore, had taken its sample. It was only Tika Ram (P.W.3) who said that the outer appearance of the haldi appeared saf suthari. Hence, it cannot be said that at the time of taking of the sample on 19-7-1977 the Haldi was not insects infested. 7. Now, the question is whether the sample which had less than five per cent insect damaged haldi, could become 61 per cent insect damaged in the course of five weeks. The applicant produced two defence witnesses to support this contention. However, I am not inclined to accept this contention. The reason is that the evidence shows that the sample haldi was put in clean and dry glass jars and was tightly sealed. It was not raining at the time of the taking of the sample. In such a situation the sample of haldi could not deteriorate so fast as to increase the percentage of insect damaged haldi from five per cent to 61 per cent. The increase, if at all, could be only to some extent and not to such a vast extent. R.L. Guptas case cannot help the appellant. That was a case where the sample of Suji was taken. The sample was examined about a month after its taking and was found to contain some living insects. The case is distinguishable on facts. 8. In view of the above, I am unable to accept the second contention of the learned counsel. 9. The learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted for reduction in the amount of fine. He has urged that the minimum sentence which could be awarded was imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/-. The fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed by the appellate court may be reduced to Rs. 500/-. On a consideration of all the facts I am of the view that this prayer may be accepted. 10. In the result, the revision succeeds in part. The conviction of the applicant Raja Ram for an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is maintained, his sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months is also maintained, but the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- is reduced to a fine of Rs. 500/- only. He shall surrender to the Magistrate concerned to serve out the sentence. 1000/- is reduced to a fine of Rs. 500/- only. He shall surrender to the Magistrate concerned to serve out the sentence. If the full amount of fine has already been paid, the excess fine shall be refunded to him.