ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Though notice was served on the State, none appeared and pursuant to another notice given to the State counsel. she has circulated a letter stating that she did not get any instructions from the State and that, therefore, she cannot proceed with the matter. We have heard the counsel for the appellants.

3. The appellant was charged for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act ) for adulteration of mustard oil. The offence had taken place on 1.2.1984. Consequently, if the offence is proved, the sentence would be a mandatory character. He was acquitted by the trial court but on appeal, the High Court set aside the acquittal and the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, he was to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. The learned Magistrate considering Section 19(2) read with Rule 12A of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules ) found that since the appellant was armed with a warranty as envisaged the