( 1 ) THE petitioner came to be convicted under sec 161 (1) (a) (i) read with sec. 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (the Act) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 with further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months in case of default by the learned Judicial Magistrate First class (Municipal) Baroda. His appeal against this order of conviction and sentence came to be dismissed. Hence this revision application.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution on January 17 1976 the Food Inspector visited the lodge run by the petitioner and found chillies powder lying in a tin. Therefore after complying with the necessary formalities he took sample and divided it in three parts. One of the bottles containing sample was sent to the Public Analyst and the report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample was adulterated. The defence of the accused that this particular chillies powder was meant for personal consumption of the petitioner-accused and not for the use in preparation of the food in the lodge did not succeed. However one of the several contentions raised before the Sessions Court was based on the nature and chara