JUDGMENT 1. :- On July 11, 1982 at 11.30 A.M. in the Railway Colony near Railway Station, Sawai Madhopur PW.1 Durga Prasad Sharma, Food Inspector, noticed the petitioner carrying mustard oil in two tins for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 375 ml. of the said oil for Rs. 4.20, prepared three samples therewith and sent one of the parts of the samples to the Public Analyst for examination. On analysis, the Public Analyst found that the sample oil did not conform to the prescribed standard. He accordingly reported that the oil was adulterated. The Food Inspector obtained the requisite written consent from the prescribed Authority and filed a complaint against the petitioner in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur. On trial the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act), convicted him as such and sentenced him to six months Rigorous Imprisonment plus fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The conviction and sentence so recorded by the learned Magistrate against him having been confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, the petitioner has approached this court in revision under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Mr. Rakesh Bhargava, the learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that since the procedure for a warrant case and not that of a summary case, as mandated by Section 16-A of the Act, was adopted in this case, the trial of the petition got vitiated and he deserves acquittal on this ground alone. 3. It is true that 16-A requires that all offences punishable uls. 16(1) of the Act should be tried in a summary way, but the second Proviso to this Section confers upon the Magistrate the power to adopt the procedure of a warrant case in appropriate cases. Trial of offences in a summary way was stressed upon by the legislature to achieve the objective of speedy trial looking to the gravity of the offence. It can hardly be disputed .that the procedure of a warrant trial involves a lengthy process and is undoubtedly more beneficial to an accused than the summary trial. Therefore, unless it is shown that prejudice has occasioned to the accused by adopting the procedure of a warrant case, the trial cannot be declared as vitiated on the mere ground that summary trial procedure ought to have been adopted. 4. Therefore, unless it is shown that prejudice has occasioned to the accused by adopting the procedure of a warrant case, the trial cannot be declared as vitiated on the mere ground that summary trial procedure ought to have been adopted. 4. In the instant case on the very first date, after putting in appearance by the petitioner before him, the learned Magistrate had indicated the adoption of the procedure of a warrant case by directing that pre-charge evidence shall be recorded on the next date. The petitioner raised no objection either at that stage or at any subsequent stage of the proceedings. No prejudice was shown or even pointed out to me to have occasioned to the petitioner by adopting the procedure of a warrant case in his trial. I, therefore, find no force in this argument and reject the same. 5. It was next urged by Mr. Bhargava that the testimony of the three witnesses, examined in this case was not reliable in as much as they had contradicted each other as to the exact place, the petitioner was found at carrying mustard oil in tins. It was submitted that the evidence produced was not only partial but has also not been rightly appreciated by the Courts below. Wain, I do not find any merits in this argument too. 6. It is the settled position of law that in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code this Court should not upset and reverse the concurrent findings of the court below unless such findings are perverse and not borne out of the evidence on record. In the instant case, both the courts below, after examining the evidence of the three witnesses, namely PW.1 Durga Prasad Sharma, PW.2 Kishan and PW.3 Deen Mohd., have concurrently held that the Food Inspector had purchased the sample oil from the petitioner in the Railway Colony near the Railway Station, Sawai Madhopur. I have looked into the statements of the three witnesses and feel satisfied that the finding recorded by the court below on the point is not only correct but also finds good basis in the sworn testimonies of the witnesses. Minor contradictions are naturally found in the testimonies of truthful witnesses. I, therefore, see no good reasons to disturb the concurrent findings of the court below on the factual aspect of the case. 7. Minor contradictions are naturally found in the testimonies of truthful witnesses. I, therefore, see no good reasons to disturb the concurrent findings of the court below on the factual aspect of the case. 7. It was next urged by the learned counsel that the relevant rules were not followed by the Food Inspector in preparing, packing and sealing the samples. No specific violation of any rule was pointed out. I find no basis for declaring that the Food Inspector had not discharged his official duties in the manner he was required to do and which duties he stated on oath to have been discharged as per relevant rules. This argument too is rejected. 8. Mr. Bhargava next urged that the Food (Health) Authority did not apply its mind before issuing sanction for initiation of prosecution of the petitioner. There is no material on record to take such a view. Moreover 1973 F.A.C. 404, as held by the Apex Court in Dhian Singh Vs. Municipal Board, Saharanpur 1973 F.A.C. 404 ) no application of mind was required for according written consent by the specified authority under section 20 of the Act as the authority to initiate prosecution can be conferred, by general or special order, long before the commission of the offence. The argument advanced is rejected. 9. Lastly it was urged that since the offence was committed in the year 1982 the petitioner may not be sent to jail after the lapse of so much of time and be let off after some increase in the amount of fine. Section 16(1) makes mandatory provision to impose minimum punishment of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the offender of the offence punishable under that provision. The discretion of the court to impose less punishment but not less than three months imprisonment & fine of Rs. 500/- for adequate and special reasons is also there in the Proviso. Apart from the long life of this litigation the stated fact of petitioner's coming from lower stratar of society and earning livelihood by selling oil in colonies are considered by me as making adequate and special reasons for imposing punishment less than the prescribed minimum of 6 months imprisonment and Rs. 1,000/- fine. 10. Apart from the long life of this litigation the stated fact of petitioner's coming from lower stratar of society and earning livelihood by selling oil in colonies are considered by me as making adequate and special reasons for imposing punishment less than the prescribed minimum of 6 months imprisonment and Rs. 1,000/- fine. 10. In view of the above while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under section 7/16 of the Act, the sentence awarded to him by the courts below is reduced to three months Rigorous Imprisonment plus Rs. 500/- as fine or one month Simple Imprisonment for default of payment of fine. With this modification in the impugned order the petition is dismissed.Revision partly allowed. *******