JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Angan Lal has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 29-11-1975 passed by the IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly. He was convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and to fine of Rs 1000/- and in default of its payment to six months further rigorous imprisonment by the trial court. The learned lower appellate court set aside the sentence of imprisonment but maintained the sentence of fine and in default of its payment he awarded four months rigorous imprisonment. 2. In brief the facts are that on 20-9-73 at about 10.30 a.m. Jagdish Singh, Food Inspector, found the revisionist carrying milk for sale in two cans near octroi post of Pilibhit bye-pass on Shahjahanpur road in Bareilly. He purchased 660 ml. of milk as sample and kept in three phials in the manner prescribed. The Public Analyst applied the standard prescribed for buffallo milk and found deficiency in fat contents by 65% and in non-fatty solids by 17%. After obtaining the requisite sanction the revisionist was tried under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. The revisionist denied the said charge and gave out that the milk was not made for sale but was being carried to his sisters daughter. 4. The first point for consideration is whether the sanction accorded in this case was valid. Learned counsel for the revisionist had attacked it on the ground that the Municipal Medical Officer of Health accorded his sanction on a printed form which was filed by the Food Inspector. According to him the Medical Officer of he Health did not apply his mind to the facts of the case the sanction cannot be held to be valid. I do not find much force in this contention because the sanction is no doubt on a printed form and the pan containing facts was filled in by the Food Inspector but the lower court part pertaining to sanction was filled in by Municipal Medical Officer of Health himself. When he did so, he will be deemed to have perused the columns filled in by the Food Inspector as well as the papers placed before him. In his statement the Food Inspector also gave out that he had placed all the relevant paper before the Medical Officer of Health. When he did so, he will be deemed to have perused the columns filled in by the Food Inspector as well as the papers placed before him. In his statement the Food Inspector also gave out that he had placed all the relevant paper before the Medical Officer of Health. In these circumstances it was not at all necessary to examine the Medical Officer of Health and he cannot be said to have affixed his signature without looking into the relevant papers; sanction does not suffer from any infirmity. 5. In the next place it is argued that the milk sample which was taken by the Food Inspector, was not meant for sale but was being carried to the sisters daughter of the revisionist. The latter failed to establish his case. He was carrying milk in two cans. According to the Food Inspector the revisionist deals in milk and was carrying it for sale on that day. The sample of milk was purchased on payment of price. Therefore, the milk was clearly for sale and the revisionists contention was rightly negatived by the lower courts. 6. Lastly, it is urged that at the time of taking the sample the Food Inspector did not enquire whether it was buffalo, cow or mixed milk. Without making an enquiry the Public Analyst should not have applied the standard prescribed for buffalo milk. I find no force in this contention because the rules lay down that when the milk is offered for sale without any indication of the class, the standard prescribed for buffalo milk shall apply. In Gajindra v. State (Criminal Revision No. 141 of 1973 decided on 20-12-1974) also it was held that in the absence of any indication on the container the milk she be tested by the standards of buffalo milk. There is not an iota of evidence on the record to show that there was any indication on the milk cans about the class of milk. It was the duty of the revisionist to disclose the class of milk, but he did not do so. Therefore, the Food Inspector had no alternative but to write on the receipts etc. that the sample of milk was taken. No question was put to the Food Inspector that the revisionist had disclosed the class of milk but the Inspector had omitted to mention it in the receipt. Therefore, the Food Inspector had no alternative but to write on the receipts etc. that the sample of milk was taken. No question was put to the Food Inspector that the revisionist had disclosed the class of milk but the Inspector had omitted to mention it in the receipt. The revisionist did not do so even in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. For all these reasons the Public Analyst was perfectly correct in applying the standard of buffalo milk. From this standard the milk was deficient both in fat contents as well in non fatty solids and the revisionist was rightly convicted under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act. The sentence awarded by him is not at all severe and does not call for further reduction. 7. The revision application is accordingly dismissed. The stay order is vacated and the revisionist is granted two months from the date of the receipt of the record by the trial court for depositing the fine, failing which he will surrender himself in court or will be taken into custody to serve out the alternative punishment.