JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 13-2-76 by Sri. B.D. Sharma, Learned Magistrate I Class, Jhansi in Criminal case no. 12 of 75 by which respondents 1 and 2 were acquitted by him of the charge under Sec. 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 are own brothers. It was on 30-5-72 at about 7.30 A.M. when Sri Chhail Behari Nigam PW 2 the then Food Inspector Jhansi, visited the shop of respondents in Bara Bazar Jhansi, Laxmi Narain respondent was found selling syrup and lassi at the shop; Kailash Narain was not present. Laxmi Narain was selling lassi and some bottles/containing syrup without any label were placed in the shop. Food Inspector served notice form no. 6 (Ext. Ka. 2) on Laxmi Narain and purchased 800 ml. Syrup for Rs. 1.50 p. in presence of witnesses Gauri Shanker and Mushtaq Ahmad for which receipt Ext. Ka. 1 was executed by Laxmi Narain. Syrup was divided in three equal portions in accordance with rules and one sealed sample alongwith from no. 7 (Est. Ka. 3) was sent to Public Analyst, Lucknow. Seal was sent separately by Food Inspector. Public Analyst analysed the sample and result is as below:- "Appearance: Dirty white coloured liquid. Test for sugar: positive. Test for Saccharine: positive. Test for coal tar dye: Negative and am of the opinion that the sample contains Saccharine without any declaration for the addition of the same." On receipt of this report respondent was informed through registered post vide Ext. Ka. 8 and necessary sanction for prosecution (Ext. Ka. 5) from Dr. S.S. Gupta was procured. Proceedings; were initiated through complaint Ext. Ka. 6. 3. Both the respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge. 4. Prosecution examined Sri Chhail Behari Nigam (PW 1) in support of the aforesaid version and filed Ext. Ka. 1 to Ka 7. Laxmi Narain denied allegation that he was selling syrup but he conceded his signatures on receipt Ext. Ka. 2; he also denied sampling but again alleged that on that morning when he reached the shop he found inspector there, who procured his signatures on some documents; Madan, servant of his elder brother was present at the shop; he expressed ignorance about the result of analysis. 5. Ka. 2; he also denied sampling but again alleged that on that morning when he reached the shop he found inspector there, who procured his signatures on some documents; Madan, servant of his elder brother was present at the shop; he expressed ignorance about the result of analysis. 5. In his statement recorded under Sec. 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, he alleged that a customer suffering from diabetes left his bottle of saccharine at his shop and went to purchase vegetables. 6. Kailash Narain alleged that he was not aware of sampling and was a teacher. He owned four shops and his servants look after his business. He conceded that he was proprietor of the shop but Madan used to sell syrup. No evidence was adduced in defence. 7. Learned trial Magistrate recorded acquittal. 8. Aggrieved by that decision, this appeal has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 9. On behalf of appellant reasoning employed by learned trial Magistrate was attacked as being perverse. 10. The first reason advanced for accquittal recorded by learned trial Magistrate was that admixture of saccharine did not expose the accused to the penalty prescribed under Secs.7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act 37 of 1954). In this connection reliance was placed upon rule 44 (g) which reads as below: 44. Sale of certain admixtures prohibited: Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 43 no person shall either by himself or by any servant or agent sell; (a) ...... (b) ...... (c) ...... (d) ...... (e) ...... (f) ...... (g) any article of food which contains any artificial sweetener, except where such artificial sweetener is permitted in accordance with the standard laid down in Appendix B. It was further pointed out that definition of Food as laid in Sec. 2 (v) in its vide amplitude covers any flavouring matter or condiments etc. as pointed out in Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange, AIR 1974 SO 228: - "The Act defines, 'food' very widely as covering any article used as food and every component which enters into it, and even flavouring matter and condiments. It is common place knowledge that the word 'food' is a very general term and applies to all that is eaten by men for nourishment and takes in subsidiaries. It is common place knowledge that the word 'food' is a very general term and applies to all that is eaten by men for nourishment and takes in subsidiaries. As supari eaten with relish by men for taste and nourishment it is food within the meaning of Sec.2 (v) of the Act." 11. Rule 47 inhibits such addition of saccharine to any other artificial sweetener. So aforesaid ground as pointed out by learned trial Magistrate for recording acquittal was simply perverse. 12. The next reason given by trial Magistrate was that Kailash Narain was not present at the shop and the shop was being run through his servant and so respondents were not liable. This reasoning is again violative of Rule 44 (1) which inhibits sale of admixture by proprietor through his servant or agent. 13. The next contention was that learned trial Magistrate wrongly observed that in the absence of corroborative evidence, testimony of Food Inspector was unreliable. This contention is also weighty. When sampling is admitted by the dealer, non compliance of Sec. 10 (7) cannot be fatal vide Babu Lal Har Govind Das v. State of Gujrat, 1971 SCC 676 . There is nothing in cross-examination of Food Inspector to show any ill-will with respondents ; this sampling was done in presence of Gauri Shanker.and Mustaq Ahmad, who attested Ext. Ka. 2. Under these ciscum-stances, there has been sufficient compliance of the aforesaid provision even though Gauri Shanker may be a Government employee vide Rama Kant v. State, 1970 AWR 81. 14. Learned counsel for respondent could not support the judgment on any additional ground. Thus, all ingredients of offence under Sec. 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were fully made out on the evidence on record. There was a prayer to extend benefit of Probation Act to the respondents. It is not possible for me to accede to this request as economic offences are serious and it was pointed out in R. K. Tejani v. M.L. Dange (Supra) that such anti social offences are to be suitably punished otherwise it would be simply a mockery of rule of law. 15. However, in view of the fact that occurrence took place on 30-5-72 and respondents were acquitted on 13-2-76, sentence of rigorous imprisonment now shall operate harshly against them. 16. 15. However, in view of the fact that occurrence took place on 30-5-72 and respondents were acquitted on 13-2-76, sentence of rigorous imprisonment now shall operate harshly against them. 16. In the result, appeal is allowed, order of acquittal recorded by learned trial Magistrate is set aside and respondents 1 and 2 are convicted under Sec. 7/16 (1)(a)(i)of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and each of them is sentenced to fine of Rs. 500/- payable within two months from today. Defaulter shall undergo six months RI each. Send the record expeditiously to the court concerned. Appeal allowed.