ORDER P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under section 7(1)/16 and 7(iii)/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R.I. on each count. He has also been fined Rs. 10Q0/- on the first count and Rs. 500/- on the second count. Both the sentences to run concurrently. His conviction and sentences have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge. Hence this revision. 2.No one has appeared in support of this revision, in spite of the fact that there are two counsels. 3. I have perused the impugned orders. According to the prosecution case the sample of buffalo milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant on 7-12-1976 at 10.30 A.M. in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Jaw. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that it was deficient in fat contents by 10% and in non-fatty solids by about 13%. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 4. Both the courts below have concurrently held the prosecution case proved beyond ail reasonable doubt. I do not find any illegality or perversity m the findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Before the courts below it was argued that the sanction was not in accordance with law and that the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind to the facts of the case. The point has been considered by the Sessions Judge. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the reasoning of the Sessions Judge to arrive at a contrary finding. In the instant case the Food Inspector had prepared and submitted the papers to the C.M.O. on 30th May, 3977 and sanction was granted on 15th August, 1977. In my opinion the court below was fully justified in holding that the sanction was in accordance with law, having regard to all the facts and the circumstances of the. case, I also find that this revision was admitted by this Court on 7-9-1979 on the question of sentence only. A sentence of six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- was imposed on the first count and a sentence of six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- on the second count. Both the sentences of imprisonment were made to run concurrently. A sentence of six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- was imposed on the first count and a sentence of six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- on the second count. Both the sentences of imprisonment were made to run concurrently. In my opinion, the cause of justice would be served by setting aside the fine of Rs. 500/- imposed on second count and by maintaining the fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed on the first count. 5. With the above modification in the quantum of fine imposed upon the applicant, this revision application is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment.