JUDGMENT B.N. Katju, J. - Mahesh has filed this appeal against the judgment of V Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh dated 15-10-1977 passed in S.T. No. 517 of 1976 convicting him under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing him to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo two months' R.I. 2. The case of the prosecution is that Surendra Singh (P.W. 1) Food Inspector purchased 375 gms. of mustard oil for Rs. 2.40 p. from the shop of the appellant in Mehnajpur Bazar on 6-12-1975 at about 3 P.M. The mustard oil was divided in three equal parts in three phials. One of the phials was sent to the Public Analyst and the report of the Public Analyst shows that it contained 17% of linseed oil. The mustard oil was thus adulterated. 3. The prosecution examined two witnesses to connect the appellant with the crime, namely, Surendra Singh Food Inspector (P.W. 1) and Mohan Ram Head Constable (P.W. 2). 4. The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he was implicated falsely due to enmity with the Police. He also denied selling mustard oil at his shop. 5. The trial court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned earlier. 6. Surendra Singh Food Inspector (P.W. 1) narrated the prosecution case as mentioned earlier. It was also stated by him that he gave notice Ext. Ka-1 in form 6 to the appellant for sending the sample of mustard oil for analysis to the Public Analyst and obtained his signature on it. After obtaining the mustard oil he gave receipt Ext. Ka-2 to the appellant and also prepared the site memo Ext. Ka-3 and obtained the signature of the appellant on it also. It was clearly stated by him in his cross-examination that he had asked the appellant whether he had mustard oil and the appellant had replied that he had it and that it was sold for human consumption. Nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to shake his credit. His evidence is, therefore, reliable. 7. Mohan Ram Head Constable (P.W. 2) corroborated the evidence of Surendra Singh (P.W. 1). Nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to shake his credit. His evidence is, therefore, reliable. 7. Mohan Ram Head Constable (P.W. 2) corroborated the evidence of Surendra Singh (P.W. 1). It was stated by him that he was posted on duty with Surendra Singh. It was also stated by him that mustard oil was being sold by the appellant in his shop. Nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to demolish his testimony. His evidence is also readable. 8. It is, therefore, established from the evidence of Surendra Singh (P.W. 1) and Mohan Ram (P.W. 2) that Surendra Singh purchased 375 gms. of mustard oil from the appellant, which was found to contain 16% of linseed oil by the Public Analyst. The mustard oil was thus adulterated. 9. The prosecution has thus succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant under Section 7/16 of the Act. 10. Considering the fact that the incident took place in 1975 and that the linseed oil, which was mixed with the mustard oil, is also an edible oil, ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence of six months' R. I. awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone, which appears to be about three weeks, and the fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed on the appellant to Rs. 250/-. 11. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under Section 7/16 of the Act is upheld, but the sentence of six months' R.I. awarded to him thereunder is reduced to the period already undergone and the fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed on him is reduced to Rs. 250/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo R.I. for one month. 12. The fine shall be paid within two months of the receipt of the record by the trial court.