( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of Mr. G. R. Luthra, Additional Sessions Judge, upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but reducing the sentence from nine months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00.

( 2 ) THE petitioner runs a Dhaba. On 14-12-1973 Food Inspector Mohan Lal went to the petitioner s Dhaba and purchased 450 Grams of chillies powder for analysis. The Public Analyst found the sample to be adulterated because of the presence of artificial coal-tar dye and 10. 0% foreign matter of starches.

( 3 ) THE defence of the petitioner was that the chillies powder in question was not for preparation of food at the Dhaba but was meant for private consumption of the petitioner. He, however, admitted that Food Inspector had taken sample of the chillies powder.

( 4 ) MR. D. R. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that only 150 Grams of chillies powder was sent to the Public Analyst instead of 200 Grams and thus there was a breach of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adultration Rules. Admittedl