JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This appeal has been filed by State of U.P. against order dated 25-7-1977 by Sri K.N. Dwivedi learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Hameerpur in Case No. 302 of 74 under Section 16 (a)(ii) read with section 7(v) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence of fine of Rs. 100/- only. In default of payment of fine, the respondent was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Prosecution story briefly stated is that on 15-12-1973 at about 3:00 p m. the respondent was found exposing for sale turmeric powder without any 'licence by Sri Jagdish Prasad Swarankar Food Inspector (P.W. 1) at his shop in Hameerpur City Rohania Street. Notice form No. 6 Ex. Ka-1 was served on the respondent by Food Inspector which was duly signed by the respondent. Food Inspector purchased nine packets of turmeric powder from the respondent for a sum of Rs. 3.96p price of which was paid in cash to him in presence of witnesses Mool Chand. Sanitary Supervisor Ram Bilas and Jhandu Lal vide Ex. ka. 2 : sample was divided in three equal portions in accordance with rules and one sample was sent to the Public Analyst for report vide Ex. ka. 5 one sample was made over to the respondent, one sample was deposited in the office of District Medical Officer of Health. Report of Public Analyst Ex. ka. 6 dated 12-2-1974 disclosed that sample was coloured with lead chromate use of which was not permitted. 3. On receipt of this report the respondent was informed and necessary sanction for prosecution Ex. ka. 7 was procured from District Medical Officer of Health. 4. The respondent in his statement pleaded not guilty and alleged that he had purchased these packets of turmeric powder on 5-11-73 from Vijai Narain Gupta of Hameerpur, agent of Deepak Industries G.T. Road Kanpur. 5. Prosecution examined Sri Jagdish Prasad Swarankar, Food Inspector PW. I in support of their case. Food Inspector narrated prosecution story and proved Ex. ka-1 to ka-7 and testified about the circuit stances of sampling. 6. In defence, one Asha Ram (DW1) was examined to testify that he was running a hotel in Hameerpur for 13/14 vears. He used to purchase turmeric powder from Kanpur. Sri Panna Lal was proprietor of Deepak Industries 24/64 G.T. Road Kanpur, who used to supply these articles. ka-1 to ka-7 and testified about the circuit stances of sampling. 6. In defence, one Asha Ram (DW1) was examined to testify that he was running a hotel in Hameerpur for 13/14 vears. He used to purchase turmeric powder from Kanpur. Sri Panna Lal was proprietor of Deepak Industries 24/64 G.T. Road Kanpur, who used to supply these articles. He proved the signatures of Vijai Narain Gupta Ex. ka.l and testified that agent of the aforesaid Deepak Industries was Vijai Narain Gupta of Hameerpur. Jagdish Prasad (P.W. 1) was recalled and expressed ignorance about Deepak Industries. 7. Learned trial Magistrate found that charge about absence of licence for sale of turmeric powder was not made out against respondent. 8. However, conviction and sentence under section 7-16(1)(a)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were recorded as given above. 9. The State has preferred this appeal. Notice was served on the respondent about this appeal on 14-3-1978. Sri Ratan Singh Raizada Advocate was appointed to defend the respondent on 17-5-1981. 10. However, respondent or his counsel did not appear in court nor could be available despite efforts to procure attendance of Sri Raizada Advocate, 11. I have heard the learned counsel for State and perused the record. It is obvious that respondent was rightly convicted for the said offence. A mere look at section 7/16 of the said Act shows that minimum sentence prescribed for the said offence is 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 7/16 of the aforesaid Act. Such economic offences are seriously noticeable as they have upset the entire economic set up of our society. No cogent reason was given by the learned counsel trial Magistrate for taking such a lenient view. 12. However, in the instant case it appears that sampling was done on 15-12-1973. Only sentence of fine was imposed on 25-7-77. The respondent was not sent to jail. Now after afflux of ?so much time I do not think it fit to send the respondent to jail straightaway but allowing the appeal I enhance the sentence of fine only to the sum of Rs. 1000/- In default respondent shall undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 13. In the result, appeal is allowed. While upholding conviction of respondent under section 7(v) 16(1)(a)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the sentence of fine is enhanced to sum of Rs. 1000/- only. 1000/- In default respondent shall undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 13. In the result, appeal is allowed. While upholding conviction of respondent under section 7(v) 16(1)(a)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the sentence of fine is enhanced to sum of Rs. 1000/- only. The amount must be paid within two months from today failing which the respondents shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Impugned order is modified accordingly. 14. Send the record at once to the court below.