JUDGMENT K.K. Birla, J. - The criminal revision No.1227 of 1985 and Criminal revision No.1728 of 1985 arise out of the same judgment and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. In short, the Food Inspector Sri Gautam Singh inspected the R.K. Soda Water Factory at Ghaziabad at about 11-30 A.M. on 29-5-78; Sri Ravindra Kumar of Criminal Revision No. 1727 of 1985 was present. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity purchased 1800 gm. of carbonated water on payment of Rs.36/- as its price and necessary formalities were completed. On analysis the samples of carbonated water were found adulterated containing saccharine. The bottles had no label for the same. The prosecution was launched against R.K. Soda Water Factory, Rajendra Kumar and Ravindra Kumar for the offences under section 7(1) of the P.F.A. Act read with ruled of the P.F.A. Rules, 1954 punishable under section 16(l)(a)(i) of the P.F.A. Act. 3. According to the prosecution case Rajendra Kumar was the proprietor of the Soda Factory and Ravindra Kumar was Sales Incharge. After trial, all the three accused were convicted and sentenced to 6 months R.l. and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in appeal, R.K. Soda Water Factory was acquitted. The. conviction and sentence of Rajendra Kumar and Ravindra Kumar were maintained. Feeling aggrieved, they have preferred the above noted revision. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Government Advocate. 5. As regards the violation of Rule 47 is concerned, I find that the Courts below have given proper reasonings for recording this finding. There is a report of the Public Analyst showing that the samples of carbonated water were found adulterated containing saccharin. Bottles were sealed. It is also proved that the bottles did not contain any label as was required under this rule. Therefore, this aspect of the prosecution case was proved and there is no ground to interfere with this finding. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for Rajendra Kumar that he has nothing to do with the business and no articles were recovered from his possession. Therefore, this aspect of the prosecution case was proved and there is no ground to interfere with this finding. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for Rajendra Kumar that he has nothing to do with the business and no articles were recovered from his possession. The Courts below have found him to be the owner of the R.K. Soda Water Factory only on the ground that documents which could have shown that he has nothing to do with this Factory or was not its owner has not been filed by him and help of the provisions of section 106 of the Evidence Act has, therefore, been taken. According to the P.W.l at the time of the inspection it was stated that Sri Rajendra Kumar was owner of the Factory. As against this in the statement under section 313, Cr.P.C. this has been denied by Rajendra Kumar. His father Chatru Behari Lal D.W.l has also stated that Rajendra Kumar has nothing to do with this Factory. 7. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that it was not satisfactorily proved that Sri Rajendra Kumar was the owner of the Factory. The Courts below have clearly erred in coming to this conclusion and its findings in this regard can not be maintained. Therefore, the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against Sri Rajendra Kumar and his conviction and sentence deserves to be set aside. 8. Lastly it was contended that the sentence awarded to Sri Ravindra Kumar is excessive. The offence made out is the violation of Rule 47 of the P.F.A. Rules as the bottles were not labelled with an adhesive declaratory label. The case will be covered under provision of section 16 which provided minimum sentence for 3 months and a fine not less than of Rs. 500/-. Considering the nature of the offence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where minimum sentence should be imposed. 9. In the result, Criminal Revision No.1727 of 1985 is allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded against Rajendra Kumar is set aside. He is acquitted. He is on bail and need not surrender His bail bonds arc discharged. 10. Criminal Revision No. 1728 of 1985 is partly allowed. 9. In the result, Criminal Revision No.1727 of 1985 is allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded against Rajendra Kumar is set aside. He is acquitted. He is on bail and need not surrender His bail bonds arc discharged. 10. Criminal Revision No. 1728 of 1985 is partly allowed. His conviction is maintained and sentence passed against Ravindra Kumar is modified to the extent that he shall undergo R.l. for 3 months and a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo R.L for one month. He shall be taken into custody by the Court below for serving out his sentence. 11. The original file along with this order be sent back to the lower court for compliance.