JUDGMENT B.N. Katju, J. - Food Inspector Prabhu Dayal Gupta has filed this appeal against the judgment of II Additional Munsif-Magistrate Jalaunat Oral dated 28-1-1977 passed in Case No. 500 of 1976 acquitting Babu respondent under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant purchased 375 grams of linseed oil from Babu respondent on 27-7-74 at about 8.30 A.M. in mohalla Rapatganj in Jalaun. The linseed oil was divided into three bottles and one of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the lineseed oil contained small amount of other edible oil. 3. A complaint was filed by the appellant in the court of Munsif-Magistrate II, Oral on 20-1-1975 against Babu respondent under Section 7/16 of the Act. 4. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant to connect the respondent with the crime namely, Prabhu Dayal (P.W. 1) and Dhaniram (P.W. 2). Babu respondent pleaded not guilty and slated that he was implicated falsely due to enmity. 5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the respondent under Section 7/16 of the Act as the linseed oil was not food as defined in Section 2(v) of the Act. 6. The trial Court in coming to the conclusion that linseed oil was not food as defined in the Act placed reliance on the case State of U.P. v. Brij Mohan reported in 1960 A.L.J. page 94 in which it was held by this Court that linseed oil was not food as defined in the Act. The above mentioned case was however, overruled by this Court in the case of Municipal Board Kanpur v. Janki Prasad and another reported in AIR 1963 Allahabad page 433 in which it was held that linseed oil was food as defined in the Act. 7. The above mentioned case was however, overruled by this Court in the case of Municipal Board Kanpur v. Janki Prasad and another reported in AIR 1963 Allahabad page 433 in which it was held that linseed oil was food as defined in the Act. 7. It has been rightly held by the trial Court that the evidence of of Prabhu Dayal Gupta Pood Inspector (P.W. 1) that he purchased 375 grams of linseed oil from the respondent on 27-3-1974 and divided it into three bottles and one of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis is reliable as nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to shake his credit. 8. The evidence of Prabhu Dayal (P.W. 1) was corroborated by the evidence of Dhani Ram (P.W. 2). It was suggested to him in his cross-examination that he was deposing falsely as he was a sub-ordinate of the Food Inspector which he denied. Nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to shake his credit. His evidence also appears to be reliable. 9. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the linseed oil contained small quantities of other edible oil. It was, therefore, adulterated. 10. The prosecution has thus succeeded in establishing the guilt of the respondent under Section 7/16 of the Act. 11. Considering the fact that the linseed oil contained only small quantities of foreign edible oil which do not appear to be injurious to health ends of justice would be met by sentencing the respondent to a fine of Rs. 100/-. 12. This appeal is accordingly allowed and Babu respondent is convicted under Section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.