JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - The revisionist was convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated cow milk. The sample of his milk was taken on 24-2-1972 by the Food Inspector in the presence of certain witnesses. 2. The revisionist denied the said charge and gave out that no sample of his milk was taken. 3. The sample of milk was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. He found it deficient in both fat contents as well as in non-fatty solids. The trial court sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of its payment to three months' R.I. The lower appellate court reduced this sentence to two months' R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 200/-and in default of its payment to one month's further R.I. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has pressed only two points before me. In the first place it is urged that there is no convincing evidence on the record that the sample of his milk was taken. None of the documents prepared by the Food Inspector on the spot bears his signature. The contention does not carry much force because there is an endorsement on these documents that revisionist had refused to affix his signatures. There does not appear to be any difference in the ink of this endorsement and the ink in which the rest of the documents were written. It is fully borne out from the evidence on the record that the sample of the revisionist and that he was exposing it for sale. It was found to be adulterated. 5. Another point which has been urged before me is that the sanction accorded in this case was invalid because the printed form or sanction was used for this purpose. It was found to be adulterated. 5. Another point which has been urged before me is that the sanction accorded in this case was invalid because the printed form or sanction was used for this purpose. It was filled in by the Food Inspector and there is no material on the record to show that the District Medical Officer of Health had applied his mind to its contents before affixing his signature on the sanction in this connection reference may be made to the case of Bishun Lal v. State, 1978 AWC 466 , decided by learned Single Judge of this Court in which it has been held that where the printed form with blank columns is used for according sanction it should normally be filled in by the Medical Officer of Health himself unless for adequate reasons it cannot be done. If it is filled in by the Food Inspector, there must be evidence on the record to show that the Medical Officer of Health had applied his mind to the same. In order to remove this doubt it is desirable that the Medical Officer of Health should be examined in court. If it is not done, the sanction cannot be held to be valid. In the instant case also the entire printed form and sanction was filled in by the Food Inspector. There is no such endorsement by the District Medical Officer of Health that he had gone through the blanks filled in by the Food Inspector. The Medical Officer of Health was not examined in this case to depose to this fact and the Food Inspector also did not give out in his statement that the District Medical Officer of Health had read the contents before affixing his signatures. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement which is fully applicable to this case, the sanction cannot be held to be valid and the revisionist's conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. 6. The revision application is allowed and the revisionist's conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence awarded thereunder are set aside. The fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to him.