JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16; of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. His conviction and science have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Varanasi. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the judgment. The facts of the case are that a sample of Haldi was taken by the Food Inspector on 31-12-1977 at 10 A.M. from the shop of the apps in accordance with the procedure prescribed bylaw. One of the sample phials, which was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, disclosed that it was coloured with lead chromate, the use of which is not permitted. After obtaining the sanction the applicant was prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case, have held the guilt of the accused established I do not find any illegality or perversity in these findings. 4. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the sentence in the instant case may be reduced. I am not inclined to grant that relief because the sentence awarded to him is the minimum prescribed by law. I have carefully considered the first and the second proviso to Section 16 of the Act. The applicant's case is not covered by either of them. In these circumstances no relief is 5. There is no merit in this revision which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment. The interim order passed by this Court on 6-3-1981 is hereby vacated. passed