JUDGMENT 1. - In this criminal revision petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following three contentions. 1. The article of food (til oil) of which sample was taken by the Food Inspector from the shop of the petitioner was not meant for human consumption and was meant for cattle consumption. 2. There was delay in sending the report by the Director Central Food Laboratory and that renders his report doubtful and no reliance can be placed on it. 3. The sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner is excessive. 2. The facts are contained in the order of the learned trial court as well as of the learned Appellate Court and it is not necessary for me to give the facts in detail and suffice to say that to appreciate the controversies which have been raised that Ram Gopal Sharma PW 1 Food Inspector had gone to the shop of the petitioner situated in Bandri-ka-nasik Jaipur. He purchased til oil from a tin in which about 13 kg. of oil was stored. The accused petitioner has licence for sale of the food articles, and on being asked license was produced by him 375 Grams of til oil which was purchased was divided into three equal parts. Each part was filled in clean and dry bottle and was wrapped/cocked and sealed in the presence of the motbirs. All the three samples were first taken to the local authority and on the same day one sample duly sealed reached to the office of the Chief Public Analyst who examined the sample and under his report dated 2nd April 1980 Ex.P. 5 found as under : B. R. Reading at 40 - 40C ............. 57.4 Saponification value ............ 190.1 Iodine valua ................. 100.1 Un-saponifiable matter ............. 0.56% Free fatty acid as oleic acid ............ 5.37% Bellier test (Turbidity Temperature-Acedit Acid Method) 27C Baudouin test ........... Positive. 3. In the opinion of the Chief Public Analyst the sample was adulterated as it does not conform to the prescribed standards of purety. After taking consent of he local authority the food inspector filed a complaint against the accused petitioner but b--fore the copy of the complaint was given to the petitioner by the public analyst i is not disputed that the petitioner received a copy of the replied on 24th May. After taking consent of he local authority the food inspector filed a complaint against the accused petitioner but b--fore the copy of the complaint was given to the petitioner by the public analyst i is not disputed that the petitioner received a copy of the replied on 24th May. 1980 and an application was filed by the petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 3rd June 1980 that another sample be sent to the Director. Central Food Laboratory the sample was sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory and the Director Central Food Laboratory under his detailed report dated 17th January 1981 found as under : B. R. Reading at 40C .............. 58.8 Saponification value .............. 189 Iodine value ............ 103 Free fatty acid as oleic acid .......... 5.94% Unsaponifiable matter ............ 0.76% Baudouin's test....... Positive. 4. Other details were also mentioned in the report and the Director opined that the sample does not conform to the standard of til oil (Gingelly or Sesame oil) laid down in clause A. 17.11 of P.F.A Rules (1955) in that (i) Iodine value is less than the minimum prescribed limit (ii) Bellier turbidity temperature is more than the maximum prescribed limit and (iii) Free fatty acid as oleic acid is above the maximum prescribed limit. 5. It was only after the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory dated 17th January,1981 was received that the charge was framed against the accused petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the P. P. Act) and the accused petitioner claimed to be tried. The accused petitioner was examined under section 313 Cr. P. C. The accused also examined two witnesses in defence that the til oil was meant for the consumption of cattle and not for the human consumption. The learned Magistrate did not place any reliance on the defence theory and convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as aforesaid and the appeal too was dismissed. 6. I will now take up the three points which were urged by the learned counsel in the seriatim in which they have been urged. 7. The learned Magistrate did not place any reliance on the defence theory and convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as aforesaid and the appeal too was dismissed. 6. I will now take up the three points which were urged by the learned counsel in the seriatim in which they have been urged. 7. Re-1: It can hardly be disputed that the T oil is an article of food and even the learned counsel for the accused petitioner does not dispute and cannot dispute that the 7 oil is also meant for human consumption but his contention is that the accused petitioner is a petty kirana shop keeper and was also having articles which were meant for cattle consumption and the tin of til oil from which the sample was taken was not meant for human consumption and was meant for cattle consumption. There is no material but the petitioner had special knowledge about it as to from where he had purchased the til oil and whether it had been purchased for human consumption or cattle consumption. The til oil as stated earlier was in a tin and was about 10 kg. and the petitioner was having a licence to sell the food articles also. 8. 'Food' is defined under section 2 (v) of the P F. Act and means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes (a) any article which ordinarily enters into. or is used in the composition or preparation for human food (b) any flavouring matter or condiments and (c) any other article which the Central Government may having regard to its use nature substance or quality declare by notification in the Official Gazette as food for the purposes of this Act. Therefore the til oil will fall within the definition of food as mentioned therein. Apart from the fact that the petitioner was having a licence to sell the article of food also and 10 kilogram of til oil was found in a tin which prima facie go to show that the til oil was meant for human consumption. Therefore the til oil will fall within the definition of food as mentioned therein. Apart from the fact that the petitioner was having a licence to sell the article of food also and 10 kilogram of til oil was found in a tin which prima facie go to show that the til oil was meant for human consumption. The learned courts below having not placed reliance on the case of the petitioner have said that the til oil was found in a tin from which sample was taken and that was meant for human consumption and taking into consideration the findings of the courts below in my opinion it can hardly call for any interference The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has placed reliance on Gyan Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan. 1980(11) FAC 260. A perusal of the facts of that cage will show that the food inspector in his cross examination has said that when he was collecting the sample at that very time the accused had told him that the mustered oil was not for human consumption and was for burning purpose. That case was on its own facts. In the instant case as said earlier that from the very fact that the petitioner has a license to sell the food articles was having 10 kg. of til oil in a tin which also contained a measurement to measure the til oil for the customers and with that measure the til oil was stirred and then sample was taken in my opinion there is irresistible conclusion that the til oil was meant for human consumption. 9. Re-2 : A look at the report of the Chief Public Analyst will show that the sample had reached him on the same day on which it was taken and was delivered by the food inspector himself. Merely because the report is dated 2nd April.1980 and it is not mentioned therein as to when in fact it was analysed it cannot be said that as a result of delay it becomes doubtful that it was the same sample which reached to the public analyst for analysis. Merely because the report is dated 2nd April.1980 and it is not mentioned therein as to when in fact it was analysed it cannot be said that as a result of delay it becomes doubtful that it was the same sample which reached to the public analyst for analysis. A perusal of the report further shows that it is clearly mentioned therein that the sample was found properly sealed and fastened and was also found that the seal was intact and unbroken and the seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the food inspector and the sample was found in a condition fit for analysis. 10. The next contention of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner is that another sample duly sealed was sent for analysis to the Director Central Food Laboratory after 3rd June.1980 and it appears from the report that it was received in his office on 8th September.1980 and was sent under memorandum No. CJM/Jp. City/No. 464 dated 1st September.1990 by the learned Chief' Judicial Magistrate and there is a reference to the same memorandum in the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory. It is also mentioned therein that the seals on the outer cover of the sample parcel were also intact and relied with the specimen impression of court seal given on memo forwarded separately. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that a comparative reading of the report of the Chief Public Analyst and of the Director Central Food Laboratory will show that there is a difference in the results of the analysis and therefore it raises suspicion that the sample which was examined by the Director Central Food Laboratory was not the same which was received by it. In support of his contention learned counsel also placed reliance on Uma Shankar Sharma Foud Inspector Vs. Raman Chona and others 1981(11) FAC 206. In that case also there were reports of the Chief Public Analyst and of Director Central Food Laboratory. The articles of food was milk. In support of his contention learned counsel also placed reliance on Uma Shankar Sharma Foud Inspector Vs. Raman Chona and others 1981(11) FAC 206. In that case also there were reports of the Chief Public Analyst and of Director Central Food Laboratory. The articles of food was milk. In the report of the public analyst the milk fat by weight was 10.71% whereas in the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory the milk fat was found to be 6.3% Total solids by weight in the report of Public analyst was found to be 34.40% and in report of the Director Central Food Laboratory it was found to be the same as found by the public analyst. It was a case of acquittal where the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused because he found that the divergence in the analysis of the sample was so great that there was suspicion that the sample in possession of the Inspector was tampered with. The learned Magistrate in that case also examined the Director Central Food Laboratory. After examining both the reports he had opined that the two samples were taken from two different lots. It was in the facts of that case that the High Court refused to interfere in the judgment of acquittal. It is well known that in appeal or revision against acquittal the scope is limited. A look at the two reports i.e. the report of the Public Analyst and the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory a reference of which has already been made in the earlier part of this order will show that the divergence was not so great and was marginal. In my opinion therefore the contention of learned counsel has no force. 11. Re-3 : Coming to the argument of the learned counsel that the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner is three years and the case of the accused petitioner falls under the first proviso to sub-sec. In my opinion therefore the contention of learned counsel has no force. 11. Re-3 : Coming to the argument of the learned counsel that the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner is three years and the case of the accused petitioner falls under the first proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Section 16 of the P. F. Act in my opinion there can be no dispute that the case does fall under the aforesaid proviso and if that be so under the aforesaid proviso the court may for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which may extend to and shalt not be less than three months but may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. Thus a discretion vests in the court for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment to impose a sentence which shall not be less than three months and a fine of five hundred rupees. In the instant case the case is of the year 1980 and the accused petitioner is a petty shop-keeper in my opinion the accused-petitioner needs leniency in the sentence and the minimum sentence of three months and a fine of Rs. 500/- shall meet the ends of justice. 12. Consequently I partly allow this revision petition. While maintaining the conviction of the accused-petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, I hereby reduce the sentence and the accused-petitioner is sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days simple imprisonment. The accused petitioner is on bail. He shall surrender the bail bonds in the trial court immediately to undergo the sentence awarded to him or any remaining part thereof he being entitled to adjudication of sentence already undergone by him. If the accused petitioner does not surrender the trial court shall take steps to see that the accused petitioner is apprehended. The trial court shall issue a arrest warrant and take necessary steps.Revision partly allowed. *******