S.R. BHARGVA, J.

In this criminal revision two points argued are -

(1) that there is non-compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and (2) that the sentence awarded is excessive.

2. So far as compliance or non-compliance of Sec, 13 (2) of the Preven tion of Food Adulteration Act is concerned, finding of the lower appellate court is the facts remain that the Registered Letter was taken by the correct address of the appellant and there someone named Ram Saran received the letter addressed to the appellant. This is a finding of fact which need not be reviewed in revision. Revisionist is Beharilal. In his statement under Sec. 313, Cr. P. C. he said that Ram Saran is only his cousin. Ram Saran was called as court witness and he disclosed his name as Ram Saran, son of Beharilal. Whether Ram Saran is son of the revisionist or is his cousin it remains a fact that he is interested in denying his signature on the Acknowledgment Due. It cannot be said that the approach of the lower appellate court towards evidence is illegal or unwarranted. On the other hand, Section 13 (c) only requires the losal health authority to forward the notice with copy of the report of the public analyst to the person from whom sample is taken according to manner prescribed. Rule 91 of the Rules framed under the Act shows that the duty of the local health authority is to only send the notice along with the copy of the report of the public analyst by Registered post or deliver it to the person from whom sample has been taken. Thus it becomes obvious that sending of notice by Registered post to the accused is sufficient compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act. I hold that in the circumstances of the case prohibited non-compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act cannot be inferred,

3. Then coming to the second point, the facts are that the revisionist is a retailer. On 25th March, 1980 sample of haldi (While turmeric) was purchased from the shop of the revisionist, report of the public analyst dis closed that the sample was coloured with lead chromate a prohibited dye. It is true that for proving offence of selling adulterated food article mens rea is not necessary. But even then all that can be inferred is that the Haldi (turmeric whole) was made more attractive by colouring it with a prohibited dye. Even then the fact remains that the offence was committed as early as 1980 by a retailer. After about eleven years I think that are special and adequate reasons for awarding lesser punishment under the proviso of Section 16 (1) of the Act. It is true that short terms sentences do not serve any useful purpose. But when the statute prescribes minimum punishment courts have no discretion let to further reduce the sentence. I hold that the second point should be accepted in part. Sentence of the revisionist should be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500 only.

4. In result, this revision is allowed in part. Sentence of the revisionist is reduced to rigours imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500. The line, if not yet deposited, should be deposited within one month. If any amount in excess of Rs. 500 has been deposited it shall be refunded to the revision. 1st Revisionist shall be at liberty to apply to the State Government for remission of his jail sentences.

Revision partly allowed.