Order.- This is a revision petition filed by the accused against his conviction under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. (XXXVII of 1954). The necessary facts are that the petitioner is a kirana merchant. PW. 1, the Food Inspector, on 26th October, 1965 at 9 a.m. went to his shop and purchased for a sum of Rs. 1-33 nP. 660 gms. of peppermints. He also seized 4| packets of sweets. Exhibit P-1 is the receipt. Exhibit P-2 is the notice served on the accused. Exhibit P-3 is the panchnama. The sample, after observing the rules, was sent to the Chemical Analyst. His report is Exhibit P-5. Exhibit P-5 discloses that the sample contains a coal-tar colour dye identified as Rhodamin-B. It further discloses that the sample contains 24 per cent, of extraneous mineral matter. The accused pleaded ‘Not Guilty’. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court reached the conclusion that the accused is guilty of an offence under section 16 of the Act and sentenced him to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and directed him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 or to suffer five months’ rigorous imprisonment on failing to pay the fine. The same conviction and sentence were confirmed on appeal. In this revision petition, the first contention of Shri Chennakesava Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that Rhodamin-B is not prohibited. According to his contention, rule 29 permits the use of that coal-tar in preparing 1 he sweets. The accused, therefore,ought not to have been found guilty under section 16 of the Act. It is not possible to accept this contention. Rule 28 refers as to which coal-tar dyes may be used. Admittedly, Rhodamin-B is not mentioned in rule 28. Rhodamin-B, therefore, is a coal-tar which is not permitted to be used. Rule 29 comes into play only in regard to coal-tars which are permitted by rule 28. When once it is found that Rhodamin-B coal-tar does not come within the ambit of rule 28, then in what proportions it can be used cannot be considered for the purpose of rule 29. It is true that rule 29 authorises the use of permitted coal-tars in certain cases and prohibits in all other cases. It is also true that, according to clause (e) of that rule, permitted coal-tar dyes can be used in preparation of confectionary and sweets. It is true that rule 29 authorises the use of permitted coal-tars in certain cases and prohibits in all other cases. It is also true that, according to clause (e) of that rule, permitted coal-tar dyes can be used in preparation of confectionary and sweets. Assuming that the peppermints fall within the meaning of sweets, even then, as-stated earlier, Rhodamin-B is not a permitted coal-tar dye under rule 28. It cannot, therefore, be used in either confectionary or sweets. I do not, therefore, experience any difficulty in rejecting this contention. The only contention which remains for consideration is whether the sentence awarded is in proportion with the nature of the offence. I have already stated that only 4½ packets of peppermints were seized. The petitioner is not a manufacturer of these peppermints. He has of course committed the offence. But, in view of the meagre quantity of peppermints seized and the circumstances of the case, I think the sentence awarded is not in proportion with the nature of the offence committed in this case. The petitioner has already spent about two weeks in the jail, in pursuance of the judgment of the Courts below. I think the ends of justice will be met if the sentence is reduced to the period of imprisonment which he has already spent in the jail and he is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500 (one thousand and five hundred only) instead of Rs. 1,000. He will further undergo rigorous imprisonment, if he fails to pay the fine, for a period of three months. I order accordingly. Subject to the above modification in the sentence the revision petition is dismissed. K.N.R. ----- Revision dismissed.