JUDGMENT B.N. Katju, J. - Suraj Bali has filed this appeal against the judgment of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh dated 22-9-1977 passed in S.T. No. 319 of 1976 convicting him under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine he has been ordered to undergo three months' R.I. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23-12-1975 at about 2 P.M. Narendra Nath Singh, Food and Sanitary Inspector, Nagar Mahapalika, Azamgarh purchased 600 grams of Haldi from the shop of Suraj Bali appellant situated in Pande Bazar in the city of Azamgarh for Rs. 2.40 P. The Haldi was divided into three equal parts and sealed in three bottles. One of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and the report of the Public Analst showed that the Haldi was adulterated as it was coloured with lead chromate which is a prohibited dye. 3. The prosecution examined only one witness, namely, Narendra Nath Singh (P.W. 1), to connect the appellant with the crime. 4. The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he did not sell my Haldi to Narendra Nath Singh Food Inspector and that he was implicated in the present case by the Food Inspector falsely. 5. Shyam Raj (D.W. 1) was examined in defence. 6. The trial court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution bad succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned earlier. 7. Narendra Nath Singh Food Inspector (P.W. 1) narrated the prosecution case regarding the incident. It was stated by him that he gave notice. (Ext. 1) on form 6 to the appellant before purchasing thz Haldi and the appellant gave receipt (Ext. Ka-2) after the Haldi had been purchased by him, which was signed by two witnesses, namely, Dehara Singh and Amar Nath. Narendra Nath Singh appears to be independent as there was no reason for him to implicate the appellant falsely. His evidence appears to be convincing and is supported by the receipt (Ext. Ka-2) signed by the appellant. Nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to shake his credit. His evidence is thus wholly reliable. 8. Narendra Nath Singh appears to be independent as there was no reason for him to implicate the appellant falsely. His evidence appears to be convincing and is supported by the receipt (Ext. Ka-2) signed by the appellant. Nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to shake his credit. His evidence is thus wholly reliable. 8. Shyam Raj (D.W.I) deposed that on the day of occurrence when he went to the shop of Suraj Bali to purchase Biri he saw a quarrel taking place between an Inspector and Suraj Bali. The Inspector was demanding money from Suraj Bali and Suraj Bali was refusing to give it. The Inspector thereafter extended a threat to Suraj Bali. It was, however, admitted by him in his cross-examination that he did not know the Department to which the Inspector belonged and that he did not know him before the occurrence. It was also admitted by him that he purchased articles from the shop of Suraj Bali daily. In these circumstances, his evidence does not establish that there was a quarrel between Narendra Nath Singh (P.W.1) and Suraj Bali Appellant on the day of occurrence. It appears that he has deposed falsely in favour of the appellant as he was his regular customer. His evidence is therefore, unreliable. 9. The result, therefore, is that the evidence of Narendra Nath (P.W.1) established that he purchased Haldi from the shop of the appellant which was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst as it was coloured with lead chromate which is a prohibited dye. The prosecution has thus succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for violating Section 7 of the Act. 10. The sentence awarded to the appellant does not call for any interference. 11. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. 12. The appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him. 13. The interim order dated 24-10-1977 is vacated.