JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - The Petitioner faced trial for contravention of the provision of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') and was convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month u/s 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh. The appellate authority (Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur) upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to three months rigorous imprisonment, but maintained the fine of Rs. 500/-, with default sentence of seven days. 2. In gist, the prosecution case is that on 28.5.1981 Petitioner failed to produce the licence required for manufacturing food articles, covered under Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules'). Some samples of food articles were also collected for analysis on the suspicion that those were adulterated, but on analysis, they were found confirming to be the prescribed standard. Therefore, ultimately prosecution was launched against the Petitioner for manufacturing food articles without obtaining a licence. 3. On evaluation of evidence the learned trial Judge found the Petitioner guilty of the offence alleged and ordered conviction and sentence as aforesaid. During hearing of the appeal, the Petitioner filed an application u/s 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for admitting a licence as additional evidence. The learned appellate Judge admitted the document without prejudice to the right of the parties, In appeal, it was contended that the licence though was issued on 30.5.1981 covered the period from 1.1.1981 to 31.12.1983 and therefore, there was no contravention of any provisions as alleged. The learned appellate Judge took this document into consideration, but held that the licence having been issued on 30.5.1981, the prosecution case was proved that at the relevant time of the inspection the Petitioner did not have requisite licence and therefore, was guilty of offence as alleged. However, taking a liberal view on account of the absence of any allegation that food samples collected were adulterated, reduced the sentence as afore indicated. 4. Mr. Mohanty in support of the Petitioner's case has strenuously urged that the Petitioner had started business a few days prior to the inspection and it is common knowledge that licence is not issued the moment it is applied for. 4. Mr. Mohanty in support of the Petitioner's case has strenuously urged that the Petitioner had started business a few days prior to the inspection and it is common knowledge that licence is not issued the moment it is applied for. The very fact that the licence was applied for and was granted for a period covering the date of inspection, should have weighed with the learned appellate Judge. Instead of taking a pragmatic view of the matter, he has passed the order mechanically. It was also submitted that the Petitioner was harping under a bona fide belief that after the licence is applied for he was entitled to carryon business activities. The licence has been issued and the same has also been renewed from time to time as is evident from the endorsements made therein. It was also submitted that though absence of a licence is made punishable under the Act, yet rigours should not be so onerous as to attract custodial sentence. The very fact that the Petitioner had started his business a few days prior to the inspection and was new to profession should have also been considered by the learned appellate authority. 5. Mr. B. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that food adulteration is a menance to the society and the sentence as sustained by the learned appellate Judge was rather lenient and no interference is called for. 6. On consideration of rival submissions, I find that it is apparent from the sentencing schemes is Section 16(1) of the Act that the Legislature has provided for stricter sentences for a person selling adulterated food with or without licence, than for a person selling unaudlterated food without a licence. Evaluation of evidence as done by the appellate authority does not suffer from any serious infirmity. In the present case, offence committed by the Petitioner is of the type contemplated by Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Sub-Section 16(1) of the Act, and it relates to contravention of rules made under Clause (9) of Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23, and it falls under the further proviso to Section 16 which lays down that for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, a sentence of imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months rigorous imprisonment and with a fine which may extend upto Rs. 500/- may be imposed. 500/- may be imposed. While upholding the conviction, I find that in view of the exonerating circumstances indicated by the Petitioner which gain support from the records, it would be appropriate to apply further proviso to Section 16 and to reduce period of imprisonment passed against the Petitioner to thee period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- as awarded by the appellate court. Under similar circumstances, similar course was adopted by this Court in the case of Tarini Sahu and Anr. v. State of Orissa reported in 1982 (2) Cri. L.J. 1234 and by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhukan Lal Vs. State, . 7. In the result, order of conviction passed against the Petitioner is maintained. Substantive term of his imprisonment passed against him is reduced to the period already undergone. Sentence of fine passed against him to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- is maintained, in default of payment thereof the Petitioner is to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of seven days as directed by the appellate court. In terms of Rules 4(2) of Orissa Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, 50% of the fine if realized, be paid to the Bargarh Municipality. The revision is dismissed subject to the modification in sentence end observations made above. Final Result : Dismissed