JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 1 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. His conviction has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment was reduced to 6 months' R.I. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. I have also been taken through the record of this case. 3. According to the prosecution story, the Food Inspector had purchased a sample of milk from the applicant on 26th Jan. 1976 at about 11.30 A.M. in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that it was deficient in fat contents by 17 per cent and in non-fatty solids by 38 per cent. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 4. 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 established beyond all doubt. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by them to warrant interference in this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the sanction in the instant case was given in the name of Prem Chand son of Jagarnath but the name of the applicant is Prem Singh. The court below has considered this aspect of the matter thoroughly and has come to the conclusion that Prem Chand and Prem Singh were one and the same person. Identity of the accused had been fully established. The courts below have observed that the accused has admitted that he received the report of the Public Analyst by registered post, which report was sent in the name of Shri Prem Chand. The accused has, further admitted that his thumb impression had been obtained. Having regard to all the circumstances, the courts below have rightly found that the identity of the applicant was established beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no merit in this submission. 6. The accused has, further admitted that his thumb impression had been obtained. Having regard to all the circumstances, the courts below have rightly found that the identity of the applicant was established beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no merit in this submission. 6. Counsel for the applicant has also tried to raise a new point to the effect that Shri M K. Singhal, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura was not authorised to try the case summarily. This point was never taken in the courts below. However, I granted time to the State Counsel to produce the documentary evidence to show that Sri Singhal was empowered to try offences summarily. The State counsel has brought to my notice the Notification No. 950/VI-226/1963, dated Lucknow April 12, 1965, which runs as follows : Notification (Powers) No. 9S0/VI-226/1965. Dated. Lucknow, April 12, 1965. "Under section 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), the Governor is pleased to confer upon Sarvsri M.K. Singhal Judicial Officer, and Ram Sharan Srivastava, Deputy Collector and Magistrates First Class, Farrukhabad District, the power to try summarily the offences described in Section 260 of that Code, which power they may exercise in any district to which they may for the time being be posted as Judicial Officer and Deputy Collector respectively." 7. This Notification clearly empowers Sri M.K. Singhal, to try offences summarily. In my opinion no separate Notification was required to be issued under the Food Adulteration Act investing Sri Singhal with summary powers. Section 36-A of the P.F.A. Act runs as follows : "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 (2 of 1974), all offences under sub-section (1) of Section 16 shall be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trial : Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year." 8. In my opinion, the Notification referred to above, issued by the State Government vests Sri M.K. Singhal, with powers to try offences summarily. In my opinion, the Notification referred to above, issued by the State Government vests Sri M.K. Singhal, with powers to try offences summarily. As such I do not find any lack of jurisdiction in the said court in trying the offence. Further learned counsel for the applicant could not convince me that any prejudice has been caused to the accused by such trial. 9. A sentence of 6 months' R.L, and a fine of Rs. 1000/- is the minimum provided under the Act for the offence in question. Moreover, the extent of adulteration was rather heavy in both fat and non-fatty solids. In these circumstances, no relief can be granted even on the question of sentence. 10. 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 9th July, 1979 staying realisation of fine is hereby vacated.