JUDGMENT S.I. Jafri, J. - The instant revision has been preferred by Baij Nath aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.9.1985 passed by Sessions Judge Banda in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 1985 Baij Nath v. State of U.P. thereby confirming the judgment and order dated 17.8.1985 passed by Sri C.L. Verma, Munsif Magistrate Banda in Criminal Trial No. 1417 of 1983. 2. In a case under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 the applicant Baij Nath was convicted under the aforesaid section by Munsif Magistrate Banda and he was consequently sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In an appeal preferred before the Sessions Judge against the judgment and order of Sri C.L. Verma, Munsif Magistrate Banda the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Munsif. On the appeal being dismissed by the Sessions Judge Banda, the applicant preferred a revision before this Court. This Court upon weighing all the facts and circumstances involved in the case, admitted the revision on the question of sentence only by its order dated 9.10.1985. 3. For better appreciation of the facts involved in the case, I wound like to give a brief account of the prosecution case. Initially a complaint was lodged by Sri M.L. Misra, Food Inspector under section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against applicant Baij Nath in which he alleged that at 12.30 p.m. on 7.11.1981 at the crossing of Baberu, the aforesaid Food Inspector paid a surprise visit to the shop of the applicant and purchased Batasha Kumpat and Namkeen for sampling purposes for their be is examined and analysed. The Food Inspector is also alleged to how demanded licence authorising him to vend the aforesaid confectionary, which the applicant is allegedly not possessed of and could not produce before trial Food Inspector and hence the applicant was challaned and prosecuted into court below. 4. The applicant in his defence denied the offence having committed by him and pleaded not guilty to the charge attributed to him. 5. I have gone through the papers on record. 4. The applicant in his defence denied the offence having committed by him and pleaded not guilty to the charge attributed to him. 5. I have gone through the papers on record. I have examined had and every aspect of the case and upon a consideration of the facts and circumstances as well as the legal aspect of the matter, I am of the view film the findings arrived at by both the courts below are cogent, reasoned ad too consistent to be carped at. For the offence of such a severity which involves adulteration in the commodities used for human consumption, sentences of imprisonment and fine are too inadequate. However at ton stage, when already a considerable period of five years have elapsed since to date of preferring of the revision in this Hon'ble Court, I do not inclined to interfere with the sentences as imposed by the courts beta More over the sentence awarded to the applicant is minimum sentence presented by law. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as tit learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the applicant craves indulgence of this Court in showing leniency to the applicant. I do not find any merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and of feel that the revision filed by the applicant being devoid of any merit liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the revision application is accordingly dismissed. The interim order of stay dated 9.10.1985 passed by this Court shall stall vacated. Office is directed to proceed in accordance with law.