This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 9. 3. 83 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, whereby the petitioner's appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.1. 82 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Lakhimpur convicting the appellant under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act hereafter for short the 'Act', and sentencing him to undergo six months' R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, was dismissed. 2. Briefly, the prosecution case was that the petitioner Gsuranga Aich had a grocery shop at North Lakhirapur. On 13. 7. 7S S. R. Baruah, District Food Inspector, hereinafter referred as the Inspector, visited the shop and collected samples of chilli powder. The samples were divided into three parts packed in three empty polythene bags and sealed in presence of the witnesses. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst whose report was that the chilli powder was adulterated. Sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was obtained and prosecution of the petitioner followed. On the petitioner's request a sample of chilli powder was sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta which also reported the chilli powder was adulterated 'for addition of common salt.' 3. The prosecution let evidence and on its consideration, the learned trial Court held that the offence under section 16 read with section 7 of the Act, had been committed and accordingly sentenced the petitioner as noted earlier. The petitioner's appeal to the learned Sessions Judge did not succeed, 4. The petitioner has come to this Court, and Sri S. K. Sen, learned counsel appearing on his behalf, has submitted that the Courts below have committed grave error in taking the view that the chilli powder was adulterated and has referred to the definition of 'adulterated' as contained in section 2, clause (ia) sub-clause (1) to contend that in this case the prosecution had n t led any evidence whatsoever to show that the chilli powder in question was injurious to health and has accordingly submitted that it could not be said that the petitioner had committed any offence. Sri Sen has also submitted that the petitioner is a petty grocery shop dealer in the rural areas who purchased articles from the other persons and sold in shop, that the matter relates to the year 1978 and that it shall not be in the interest of justice now to send him to jail. 5. On the other hand, Sri B. B. Narzary, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the chilli powder was adulterated in view of sub-clause (m) of clause (ia) of section 2 of the Act, which did not require the prosecution to prove that the article of food was injurious to health. Sri Narzary has also submitted that the law in section 16 proscribes a minimum punishment and accordingly there is no scope for any interference with the order of sentence. 6. I have considered the submissions for the parties and the materials on record. 7. Ext. 12, the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, was that the samples of chilli powder was adulterated for 'addition of common salt'. In Appendix-B with the Act item A. 05. 05. 01 the standard for 'chillies' has been prescribed. Consi­dering the above report and the standard proscribed, there was no scope for any view different from that the chilli powder Which had common salt, was adulterated. 8. Sri Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that under sub-clause (I) of clause (ia) of section 2 of the Act, the prose­cution had to prove that the article of item was injurious to health. Sub-clause (1) reads as under : "(1) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the proscribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, which renders it injurious to health." It is true that the provisions or sub-clause (1) do require it to be proved not only that the article of food fall below the prescribed standard but also that it was rendered injurious to health, however the provisions of sub-clause (m) are important and relevant in the present case and require to be considered. Sub-clause (m) provides : "(m) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard of its constituents are present in quantities not within the proscribed limit of variability but which does not render it Injurious to health : ( emphasis supplied)" Sri S. K. Sen has submitted that even under sub-clause (m) it was required to be proved that the article of food was rendered injurious to health, on consideration of the language of sub-clause (m), the submission in my opinion is not tenable. It provides for cases of articles which fall below the prescribed standard in its quality or purity, but which do not render it injurious to health. For example, if milk is mixed with water, it would not be rendered injurious to health because of fall in prescribed standard in its quality or purity. Similarly, chilli powder, if it is mixed with, common salt, as in the instant case, it would obviously not be rendered injurious to health, but in ' such a case the provisions of sub clause (m) would clearly be attracted. 9. Considering the various sub-clauses of clause (ia) of section 2 above, it appears that article of food may be considered adulterated for various reasons or causes and the same article of food may be covered by any one or more of the sub-clause of clause (ia) above. While it may be that an article of food in a particular case, may not be covered by more than one provisions of said sub-clauses but if it is covered by the provisions of even one of the sub-clauses like sub clause (m) in the present case, it shall in my opinion be sufficient to consider the article of food as adulterated and accordingly even though it may by said that mere addition of common salt to the chilli powder did not render it injurious to health it was nevertheless adulterated within the scope and meaning of sub-clause (m) of clause (ia) of section 2 of the Act. I am, therefore, unable to accept the submission for the petitioner that chilli powder in question was not adulterated. The learned below have rightly held that the chilli powder in question was adulterated. 10. I am, therefore, unable to accept the submission for the petitioner that chilli powder in question was not adulterated. The learned below have rightly held that the chilli powder in question was adulterated. 10. Sri Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner was a petty grocery dealer in the rural areas and that the matter relates to the year 1978, he may not suffer imprisonment. Sri Sen has referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in Gaoeshmal JashraJ vs. Government of Gujarat, (1980) 1 SCC 363 , where in para 7 it was inter alia observed: “We fail to see why at the time of taking samples from the small retailer, the food inspectors do not care to find out from which wholesaler or manufacturer he had purchased the particular food stuff and after ascertaining the name of such wholesaler or manufacturer, proceed immediately to the place of business of such wholesaler or manufacturer and take samples for the purpose of finding out whether the food stuff which is being sold by him is adulterated or not. The anxiety of the food inspectors seems to be only to catch hold of the small tradesman and not to proceed against the higher wholesalers or manufacturers who are quite often the real culprits. Otherwise, we do not understand why there are so few cases against wholesalers and manufacturers brought to the Courts." The Supreme Court further observed that: "It is no doubt true that there is a provision in the Act that if a warranty in writing is taken by the dealer from the wholesaler or manufacturer from whom he has purchased the food stuff, he would be exempt from criminal liability, but it is obvious that in a poor country like ours where there are small tradesman taking out a miserable existence from small daily sales and many of them are ignorant about the provision of the law and are moreover at the mercy of the wholesalers and manufacturers, such a provision does not afford any real protection to the small tradesman and there may be cases where they may have to go to jail for the sins of the wholesalers and manufacturers entailing untold hardship on their family”. In the District Food Inspector vs. Meghraj Sarmah (1984) 1 GLR 247. In the District Food Inspector vs. Meghraj Sarmah (1984) 1 GLR 247. a Division Bench of this Court in a case of adulteration of mustard oil on the question of sentence, in para 14 observed : "As regards the sentence, Mr. De fairly points out to us that the sample in this case was collected on 7.2.72 and the judgment of acquittal was passed on 30,7.74. More than a decade has thus rolled by since the date of taking of sample. The Special leave was granted and this appeal was admitted on 31.1.75. Somehow it has taken more than seven long years to dispose of this appeal. Under the above circumstances we are of the view that a custodial sentence after such a long time may be rather stringent. This appears to us to be a suffi­cient reason for imposing a lesser sentence that the prescribed minimum. Following AIR 1961 S.C. 631 and 1979 (1) F.A.C. 193 we feel that ends of justice and crime control may be met if the respondent is sentenced to pay a line of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) only, and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprison­ment for six months and we sentence him so." 11. In the instant case, considering that the matter relates to the year 1978 and in particular that the petitioner is a small grocery dealer in the countryside and also that the chilli was found adulterated with common salt, and that the ends of justice shall be met by alteration of sentence. I therefore direct that the sentence of the petitioner be altered and modified to enhancement of the fine amount from Rs.1000/-to Rs. 2000/- in default six months R.I. The petitioner to deposit the fine amount within three months. 12. The petition is disposed of accordingly.