JUDGMENT V.N. Misra, J. - This is an application in revision by Satish Chandra against the judgment and order of Shri R.N. Tewari, Vll Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, dated 31-3-1981 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1979, which was dismissed by him and the conviction of the applicant and the sentence imposed on him under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Adulteration Act were maintained. 2. Very briefly stated the prosecution case was that on 10-11-1974 the applicant was selling mustard oil at his shop in village Ladpur. Food Inspector M.P. Sharma, reached there, introduced himself and purchased 375 grams of mustard oil for Rs. 3.38. This oil was sealed in three dry bottles and notice in Form VI was given to the applicant to intimate to him the intention of the Food Inspector to send this oil for analysis. When, one of these bottles in which the sample had been sealed, was sent to the public analyst some linseed oil and considerable Til Oil was found mixed with this mustard oil. Since the oil was adulterated sanction of the Chief Medical Officer was obtained and after prosecuting the applicant, he has been convicted as aforesaid. 3. It was urged that the oil taken by the Food Inspector was described as mustard oil No. 2, which indicated that the oil was being sold as substandard mustard oil. This oil was described as mustard oil No. 2 because the applicant himself gave this description of the oil to the Food Inspector. It was, however, mustard oil and was being sold as mustard oil, therefore, the standard prescribed for mustard oil had to be complied with. 4. Then it was argued that in this case provisions of Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were breached because independent witnesses were not taken. The only two witnesses, at the time when this sample was taken, were Ram Swarup, Sanitary Supervisor, and Tehsildar, Vaccinator. Both these witnesses were from the same department, but the Food Inspector explained and stated that though other witnesses had come, they were not prepared to testify as witnesses and, therefore, their signatures could not be obtained. Since independent witnesses could not be taken, the witnesses available were properly taken. 5. Finally, it was argued that this offence took place in 1974 prior to the amendment of this Act m 1976. Since independent witnesses could not be taken, the witnesses available were properly taken. 5. Finally, it was argued that this offence took place in 1974 prior to the amendment of this Act m 1976. The applicant was a petty shop-keeper of a village and the oils found mixed with the mustard oil were, in no way, injurious to health, therefore, the sentence imposed on the applicant may be suitably reduced because under the earlier un-amended Act no minimum sentence was fixed. There is no reason why this should not be accepted. 6. The revision is, therefore, partly allowed, conviction of the applicant is maintained; but the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone and the line is reduced to one thousand rupees only. In default of payment of this line, the applicant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The applicant is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled, but the sureties shall be discharged only after the fine is paid, as imposed on him now.