SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

2. According to the prosecution case, on 12th of December, 1965, Abdus Subhan (P.W. 2), a Food Inspector, visited the shop of the petitioner and took sample of turmeric on payment of price. Part of it was sent to the Public Analyst, who found it to be adulterated containing excess lead - (vide report, Ext. 3). The defence was that the turmeric which the petitioner sold to P.W. 2 was for dyeing clothes and not meant for human consumption. Therefore, it was not a food within the meaning of the Act. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court has held that there was no substance in the defence of the petitioner and the turmeric which was sold to P.W. 2 was a food and thus the petitioner was guilty of the offence.

3. Mr. Shilesh Chandra Misra, appearing for the petitioner has argued in the first place that in absence of any material