R.N.MISRA, J. - (1.)PETITIONER is a retail grocer near the bus stand at Sundergarh town. On 11.11.1974, the Food Inspector (P. W. 1) made a statutory purchase of til oil from him after serving notice under Ext. 1. He obtained a receipt in evidence of the sale under Ext. 2 and as he suspected adulteration, he got it analysed by the Public Analyst. Ext. 3 is the report of the Public Analyst showing that the sample til oil was adulterated. He obtained sanction under Ext. 4 and petitioner was prosecuted under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the' Act').
(2.)THE defence of the petitioner was that he was not selling til oil as food but only for the purposes of massaging on the body. When P. W. 1 asked for purchase of til oil he told him that he had til oil meant for massage.
Prosecution examined three witnesses in all - P. W. 1 is the Food Inspector, P. W. 2 is the Sanitary Inspector while P. W. 3 is a peon attached to the office of P. W. 1. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case and convicted the petitioner for the charge framed against him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - or in default suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and sentence. This revision application is directed against the confirming appellate decision.

(3.)IT is not disputed that P. W. 1 made a statutory purchase and on analysis the sample has been found to be adulterated Three questions have mainly been canvassed in support of the petitioner: -
(i) There has been no compliance of Section 10 (7) of the Act. Therefore, the prosecution is vitiated. (ii) The defence story that the petitioner told P. W. 1 that he did not have til oil fit for human consumption should have been accepted as it has been duly proved as a fact. (iii) No reliance should have been placed on Ext. 5 for proof of the charge.