MADAN MOHAN PRASAD, J.

1. This is an application in revision for enhancement of the sentence awarded by the Magistrate under Sec.16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 50(1)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

2. It appears that the opposite party was prosecuted on the report of an Assistant Health Officer-cum-Food Inspector alleging that on the 10th December, 1967, he along with others had visited the shop of the Opposite party and found him manufacturing, selling and storing for sale nimki, biscuits and pawroti without any licence.

3. The defence plea was a denial of the prosecution story and innocence of the accused.

4. The learned Magistrate found the prosecution case proved as against the opposite party and convicted him as stated above. He, however, sentenced the opposite party to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 only and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved with this order of sentence, the petitioner has come up with this application.

5. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has not challenged the legality of