JUDGMENT S. Malik, J. - This is an application in revision by Shyam Lal against his conviction under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- recorded by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital. 2. The relevant facts are that the applicant had a shop in the bazar at Haldwani. On the 20th of April, 1977 P.W. 1 D.S. Visht, Food Inspector of the area, visited the shop at about 11.30 A.M. and took sample of Lahi oil according to law. One third portion of the sample sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated as according to the Public Analyst it contained argamone oil. Under section 13(2), the applicant had the portion of the sample in his possession sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory and according to the report of the Director, though there was no argamone oil in the sample it nevertheless was adulterated as test for polybromides was found to be positive. As under the law the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, the applicant was convicted and sentenced by the trial court and in appeal the appellate court while upholding the conviction reduced the sentence as mentioned. 3. The first contention put forward was that as no standard has been laid down under the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for Lahi oil, the applicant should not have been convicted or sentenced. The contention has no force. Lahi oil, is a type of mustard oil and is covered by the standard laid down in A. 17.0.6 in Appendix B to rule 5 of the Rules. Clause (c), which lays down iodine value in the oil mentions that polybromides test shall be negative. Therefore, it will be wrong to say that there is no standard laid down for Lahi oil. 4. It was also argued that prolonged storage must have affected the quality of the sample and merely because the Director, Central Food Laboratory found polybromides test to be positive, it could not be said that at the time the sample was taken it was not negative. Nothing could be brought to the notice of the Court to support this contention. It was also argued that prolonged storage must have affected the quality of the sample and merely because the Director, Central Food Laboratory found polybromides test to be positive, it could not be said that at the time the sample was taken it was not negative. Nothing could be brought to the notice of the Court to support this contention. The Director, Central Food Laboratory, certified that the sample was received by him in a condition fit for analysis. Under the circumstances, the. applicant has been rightly convicted under section 16 read with. section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 5. On the question of sentence, it was argued that the iodine value was within limits and only test for polybromides was positive. It could have been because of a trace of some foreign matter over which the applicant had no control. Moreover, a number of years have passed since the sample was taken and, therefore, the sentence be further reduced. As will appear from a perusal of the proviso to section 16, the minimum sentence possible has been awarded by the lower appellate court. The application, therefore, has no force and is, hereby, rejected. The applicant is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith and failing that he shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. The stay order dated 22-11-1979 is, hereby, vacated.