JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant was convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six month's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-. His conviction and sentence was confirmed, in appeal by the Sessions Judge. Mainpuri. Hence this revision. 2 According to the prosecution case, the applicant was selling buffalo milk when the Food Inspector took a sample from him. The sample was sent for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the specimen was deficient in fat contents by 18 per cent and non fatty solids by 13 per cent. Sanction for prosecution was obtained. On this allegation the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted by the courts below. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. The finding of fact with regard to the taking of sample of buffalo milk by the Food Inspector can not be assailed, in view of the fact that the courts below have concurrently held the same proved. The report of the Public Analyst also disclosed that the sample of buffalo milk was deficient in fat contents by 18 per cent and in non-fatty solids by 13 per cent. This report has also been accepted rightly by both the courts. 4. In the grounds of revision, it has been mentioned that the sanction for prosecution is invalid. I have perused the sanction (Ex. Ka. 6) which is on the record. Ex. Ka. 5 and Ex. Ka. 6 are incorporated on the same form. Ex. Ka. 5 is signed by the Food Inspector. He gives all the details with regard to the commission of the offence including the result of analysis by the Public Analyst. The names of witnesses are also filled in there. I have no reason to believe that the District Medical Officer did not consider these facts which appeared on the face of the said Exhibits while he granted the sanction for prosecution which was duly signed by him on 28th of June, 1974. In my opinion this is not a case, where it can be said that the District Medical Officer has not applied his mind to the facts of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the quantity of formalin which is alleged to have been mixed with the sample has not been clearly indicated. In my opinion this is not a case, where it can be said that the District Medical Officer has not applied his mind to the facts of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the quantity of formalin which is alleged to have been mixed with the sample has not been clearly indicated. He, therefore, argues that the sample must have deteriorated and was incapable of analysis. The decision of the Supreme Court is very clear on this question. Even if we assume that the quantity of formalin was less than stipulated yet unless the report of the analyst indicates that it was not sufficient for a proper analysis, it will not vitiate the result of the analysis. I therefore, do not see any force in this contention raised by the learned counsel. 6. I, also, hold that the sanction granted for prosecution is in accordance with law. For the reasons given above, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of his sentence. The record shall be sent to the Court below within 3 weeks from today.