JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Lalta Prasad alias Radhika filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 17-2-1981 passed by the Sessions Judge, Lalitpur. dismissing his appeal and confirming his conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence of six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine two months R.I. was awarded. 2. In brief the prosecution case was that on 19-12-1978 at 10-30 p.m. Sri Nagendra Gupta, Food Inspector of Mobile Squad, Jhansi Division Jhansi took a sample of mustard oil from the shop of the revisionist situate in Bansi, P.S. Jakhaura, District Lalitpur. The revisionist was selling or exposing for sale edible articles including mustard oil. The Food Inspector took sample of that oil on payment of price and prepared necessary documents in respect thereof. The oil was kept in three vials which were properly sealed. One of them was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the oil was adulterated and was not fit for human consumption. After obtaining the requisite sanction of the Distt. Medical Officer of Health the complaint was filed against the revisionist. 3. The revisionists denied the said charge as well as selling of any oil to the Food Inspector. He, however, admitted his thumb impressions on the receipt and notice and examined one Raja Ram to prove that the oil was meant for burning and not for human consumption. According to him the revisionist had given it out to the Food Inspector also. 4. After going through the evidence on the record the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the oil was meant for human consumption and was adulterated. Accordingly, the revisionist was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. The appeal filed by him was dismissed. 5. Several points have been urged before me but some of them carry no force. In the first place it is argued that there is nothing on the record to prove that Sri Nagendra Gupta, Food Inspector of the Mobile Squad, was authorised to collect sample in district Lalitpur. This contention has no force because it was not raised before the learned trial court. If it was done at that stage the prosecution would have produced the necessary notification to show that Gupta was competent to collect sample in district Lalitpur also. This contention has no force because it was not raised before the learned trial court. If it was done at that stage the prosecution would have produced the necessary notification to show that Gupta was competent to collect sample in district Lalitpur also. In the second place it is urged that the Food Inspector appears to have collected sample from one Lalta Prasad. Later on when he came to know that the revisionist was not Lalta Prasad but Radhika he made manipulations in the receipt and the notice by writing the name as Lalta Prasad alias Radhika. It is true that the addition of the name of 'Radhika in the receipt and the notice are in different ink but much capital cannot be made out of it. In his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. the revisionist gave his name as Lalta Prasad alias Radhika. He also admitted that he had fixed his thumb marks on the receipt and the notice. Therefore, there is no scope for argument that any manipulation was made in the documents by the revisionist as the person from whose shop the sample was collected. 6. The third contention is that there was the solitary testimony of the Food Inspector which could not be relied upon and more so when he was not posted at Lalitpur. There is no force even in this contention. In Prem Vallabh and another v. State of Delhi, 1976 FAJ 390 the Supreme Court has held that conviction can be based on the solitary testimony of a Food Inspector. 7. Lastly, it is urged that oil from which sample was taken was meant for burning and not for human consumption. This fact was disclosed to the Food Inspector when he came to take the sample. There is force in this contention because the revisionist gave out in his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. that he had given out to the Food Inspector that the oil was not meant for human consumption. He examined one witness who fully corroborated him and nothing useful was elicited in cross examination to discredit his testimony. On the other hand the Food Inspector did not examine any witness to contradict him. Therefore, there is every force in the defence contention that the oil was not edible. He examined one witness who fully corroborated him and nothing useful was elicited in cross examination to discredit his testimony. On the other hand the Food Inspector did not examine any witness to contradict him. Therefore, there is every force in the defence contention that the oil was not edible. As held in the case of Nagar Mahapalika Varanasi v. Parmeshwar, 1962 All Cr R 518 where the accused informed the Food Inspector that the oil was non-edible, the sample could not be said to be adulterated within the meaning of section 2(i)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. For all these reasons the revisionists conviction cannot be sustained. 8. In the result, the revision application is allowed and his conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence awarded thereunder are set aside. He need not surrender. The bonds furnished by him are cancelled. The fine if deposited shall be refunded to him.