JUDGMENT V.N. Misra, J. - This is an application in revision by Anant Kumar against the Judgment and order dated 30.5.1981 of Sri Y.S. Raizada, Additional Session Judge, Kanpur, by means of which he confirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant under section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as imposed on him by Sri S.K.I. Naqvi, Metropolitan Magistrate (Corporation), Kanpur. 2. A detailed narration of facts involved in this case will not be necessary and it is suffice to say that 600 grams of Arher pulse was taken from the applicant on 30.10.1979 at about 9-00 a.m. This sample was divided into three parts and was sealed in the presence of Shyam Narain Tewari, a public witness. One of those was sent to the Public Analyst and it was found that the percentage of inorganic matter in it was 4.3 per cent by weight, which was in excess of the maximum permissible limit of 1 percent. This sample was, therefore, found adulterated. The applicant was, therefore, prosecuted and has been convicted as aforesaid. 3. The first point raised in this revision was that in this case there was breach of section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act because at least one independent public witness should have been examined to say the sample was properly taken, but no such witness was examined. The record, however, shows that when the sample was taken Shyam Narain Tewari was one such witness. The witness was, therefore, taken and this is all that is required by section 10 (7) of the said Act and whether he was examined or not did not matter. 4. In this case, however, inorganic matter was found in excess of the permissible limit. The sample was, however, of Arher Dal which is cooked after being properly cleaned. When this Dal was going to be cooked the thrash in it was bound to be taken out and thrown away. The inorganic matter found in it was, therefore, not in any way injurious to health and for this reason it is a very proper case, if the sentence awarded to the accused should be reduced under proviso (i) of Section 16 of the said Act. 5. The inorganic matter found in it was, therefore, not in any way injurious to health and for this reason it is a very proper case, if the sentence awarded to the accused should be reduced under proviso (i) of Section 16 of the said Act. 5. While, therefore, this revision is dismissed and the conviction of the applicant maintained his sentence is reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees five hundred only. In default of payment of fine, the applicant shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment of five months. The applicant is on bail and shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the modified sentence.