1. Petitioner was found guilty of offences under S.2(ix)(c) and S.7(2) read with S.16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On 19-2-81, at or about 1.15p.m. Pw.4 visited the shop of the petitioner, and after disclosing his identity, demanded 375 grams of groundnut oil and purchased it. It was duly sampled and analysed. Ext. P2 report of the Analyst shows that the sample analysed was of palmolein oil, and not groundnut oil. Acting on this evidence, the Magistrate below found that the article sold was misbranded and the offence proved. Appeal was unsuccessful.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the Food Inspector pointed out at a tin and asked for the sample, presuming it to be groundnut oil and that the petitioner did not sell palmolein for groundnut oil. There is difficulty in accepting the submission because, the evidence of Pw.4 is that he asked for groundnut oil. though he says he pointed at a tin. This is made clear in answer to a question in cross-examination. It cannot be said that concurrent finding made by the courts below on this aspect is vitiated by any illegality or impropriety.

3. Learned counsel contended that this is not a case