J.M.L.Sinha, J. - (1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 20th January, 1977, passed by Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, maintaining the conviction recorded against the applicant by trial court under section 16 (l)(a) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but reducing the sentence to three months rigorous imprisonment, besides a fine of Rs. 1000/-. While admitting this revision it was directed that a notice be issued to show-cause why the sentence given to the applicant be not enhanced. It is thus, that this revision has come up before us.
(2.) Facts of the case, very briefly stated, are as follows:- On 15th March, 1975, at about 2.45 P.M. Shri Dinesh Kumar (P.W.1), Food Inspector, Lalitpur, collected sample of mustard oil from the shop of the applicant. On being sent to the chemical examiner it was found that the sample was adulterated and further that prohibited coal tar dye was mixed in it. Complaint was, therefore, filed for the prosecution of the applicant for the offence under section 16 (1) (a) of the Act.
(3.) The applicant during his examination in the trial court admitted the collection of the sample from his shop on the date and time alleged, but pleaded that the oil was not meant for edible purpose. During his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he added that the oil was meant for burning and that the applicant told this fact to the Food Inspector when the sample was collected.;