JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. -The applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo 3 months' R.I. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Jhansi. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. I have also perused the statement of the Food Inspector, which has been filed along with the revision application. 3. According to the prosecution case, the Food Inspector purchased a sample of Pisi Haldi from the Karina shop of the applicant at 10.30 A.M on 13th June, 1975 situate at Civil lines Jhansi City. This Pisi Haldi had been kept in one tin canister in the shop for the purpose of sale. The Food Inspector divided the sample in three parts, and sealed the bottles in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was Kent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that it was adulterated inasmuch as it contained sodium chloride to the extent of 6.58 per cent. The Public Analyst also found that the sample contained total ash to the extent of 10.74 per cent, which also exceeded the maximum permissible limit of 9 per cent. After obtaining sanction, the applicant had been prosecuted and convicted as above Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case have held the guilt of the accused fully established. 4. Counsel for the applicant has argued that in the instant case, the sanction for prosecution was not granted by the Sanctioning Authority after applying his mind, but in a most mechanical manner. In this connection, he has urged that the writing in the body of sanction was in different ink from the order of sanction under sections 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act. No sub-section has been filled in the brackets. He has, therefore, contended that this is not a valid sanction. He relied upon my own decision, reported in 1978 (II) FAC 130, Kishan Lal v. State. I have carefully perused the aforesaid decision. The facts of that case were very much different to the facts of the present case. No sub-section has been filled in the brackets. He has, therefore, contended that this is not a valid sanction. He relied upon my own decision, reported in 1978 (II) FAC 130, Kishan Lal v. State. I have carefully perused the aforesaid decision. The facts of that case were very much different to the facts of the present case. Several irregularities and infirmities had been pointed out by me in Kishan Lal's case, apart from the fact that the body of the sanction had been filled in a different ink and was a typed form. I do not find those infirmities existing in the instant sanction. As a matter of fact, counsel for the applicant has not pointed to me any other infirmity except the fact that the sub-section has not been filled in the application. This, in my opinion, is not sufficient to invalidate the sanction. The sanction, itself indicates that the Sanctioning Authority had perused all relevant papers in this connection while granting sanction. The Food Inspector had stated that he had forwarded all the papers to him. I am not satisfied that the Sanctioning authority did not apply his mind to the facts of the case and granted the sanction mechanically. 5. The applicant's counsel has urged that there has been no compliance with Rule 9(j) of the Act, inasmuch as copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not sent to him. From a perusal of the statement of the Food Inspector, it is very clear that the Food Inspector had got a copy of the report of the Public Analyst sent to the accused, through the office. Counsel for the applicant has also argued that there is a circular letter of the Central Government dated 14th November, 78 on the basis of which a direction is given that prosecution of offences with regard to mixture of spices where the adulteration does not exceed two per cent, should be avoided. This letter does not have the force of law. The Food Adulteration Act prescribes specific standard for the various articles of food, mentioned therein. If the sample does not prescribe to the standard, the offence is complete. 6. Lastly, it is argued that some reduction may be given on the question of sentence. Offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are very rampant. The Food Adulteration Act prescribes specific standard for the various articles of food, mentioned therein. If the sample does not prescribe to the standard, the offence is complete. 6. Lastly, it is argued that some reduction may be given on the question of sentence. Offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are very rampant. The sample of Haldi contained not only salt, but also ash beyond the permissible limit. The applicant was trying to make illegal gain by such mixture to his profit and to the detriment of the community. The courts below have rejected the defence evidence that the Pisi Haldi was mixed with salt because it was grinded subsequent to an assignment of salt without cleaning the machine. I have no reason to doubt, the correctness of the finding, recorded concurrently by the courts below. In these circumstances, I am unable to interfere even on the question of sentence. 7. There is no 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 the sentence of imprisonment. The interim order, passed by this court on 31st October, 79 is hereby vacated.