JUDGMENT S. Malik, J. - This is an appeal by the State against the judgment dated 19-5-1976 of the Munsif-Magistrate, Mainpuri, acquitting the accused-respondent of the charge framed against him under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in Criminal Case No. A-528 of 1975. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The facts proved by the prosecution through P.W. 1 V.P. Chaudhary, the Food Inspector and the other evidence on the record are that on 28-6-1974 at 9-00 A.M. he took sample of white cumin seed according to law for analysis from the shop of the accused situated in Kusumara Bazar in police circle Kishni in District Mainpuri. One-third portion of the sample sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated as it contained 9.55% of organic extraneous matter. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty and denied the entire prosecution version, but did not adduce any evidence in his defence. He stated that he did not know why he was being prosecuted. 5. The learned Magistrate found that necessary sanction for prosecuting the accused was obtained and the prosecution has proved the taking of j the sample from the shop of the accused according to law. The lower court acquitted the accused, because in its view, the standard of purity laid down in Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) is not the standard adopted by the Public Analyst. The lower court pointed out that in the sample, according to the Public Analyst there was 89.29% cumin seed instead of 88% required under the rules. 6. The learned Magistrate, I am afraid, failed to appreciate correctly the standard laid down in the rules and also the report of the Public Analyst. It is true that according to the standard laid down in Appendix B of the rules, the amount of cumin seed should be at least 88%, but it also lays down (vide A.05.09) that the proportion of extraneous matter, both organic and inorganic combined, should not exceed 7% by weight and the proportion of edible seeds other than cumin seed shall not exceed 5% by weight. In the instant case, the proportion of foreign edible goods was negligible being 0.12% as found by the Public Analyst, but the proportion of extraneous matter combining both organic and inorganic was 10.59%. The only mistake the Public Analyst committed was by mentioning that the proportion of organic extraneous matter exceeded the limit of 5%. Under the rules, the proportion of extraneous matter combining organic and inorganic should not exceed 7%. The report of the Public Analyst, therefore, clearly shows that the sample was adulterated. 7. It was argued on behalf of the accused that the incident.took place as far back as in the year 1974, and that keeping in view the facts and the circumstances of the case, it would serve no useful purpose in sending the accused back to jail. 8. In view of the reasons discussed and after considering the material on the record, I allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the court below acquitting the accused-respondent and convict him under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As the incident took place before the amendment was brought about in the year 1976, I sentence the respondent to the period of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 100/- which he shall deposit within three months from the date of receipt of the record in the lower court. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.