JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Chanderpal has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 18-12-1976 passed by the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur confirming his conviction under Section 7/16 of tho Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine six months' further rigorous imprisonment was awarded. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 29-10-1974 at 10 A.M. Sri Tomar, the then Food Inspector visited the Namkeen shop of the revisionist and found his servant Mangal Ram selling Namkeen on his behalf. After giving the requisite notice to Mangal Ram the Food Inspector purchased 753 grams of Channey ki dal on payment of price. The sample was divided into three parts and was kept in separate portions, one was given to Mangal Ram and the other one was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported that it contained Lathyrus Sativus (Kasari Dal). The use of this Dal is prohibited by the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Hence the Public Analyst found the sample adulterated. The Food Inspector launched prosecution after obtaining sanction of the District Medical Officer of Health. 3. Mangal Ram absconded and his case was split up. Chanderpal revisionist pleaded not guilty and gave out that no sample of Dal was taken in his presence nor Mangal Ram was his servant. Both the learned lower courts disbelieved the revisionist's contention and found him guilty of the said charge. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has pressed a number of points before me. In the first place it is urged that the sanction accorded by the Medical Officer of Health was invalid because he did not apply his mind to all the papers. The paper on which the sanction was accorded was filled in by the Inspector and the District Medical Officer of Health does not appear to have applied his mind to its contents. It has no force because the Food Inspector clearly gave out that he bad sent all the papers to the District Medical Officer of Health and the latter had accorded sanction after perusing them. There was no cross-examination on this point. 5. The second contention is that the copy of the Public Analyst's report was not sent to the revisionist. It has no force because the Food Inspector clearly gave out that he bad sent all the papers to the District Medical Officer of Health and the latter had accorded sanction after perusing them. There was no cross-examination on this point. 5. The second contention is that the copy of the Public Analyst's report was not sent to the revisionist. In the instant case the sample was taken from the possession of Mangal Ram and the statement of the Food Inspector makes it clear that copy of the report was sent to Mangal Ram by registered post. It was not at all necessary to send the copy of the report to the revisionist who was not present at the time the sample was taken. Therefore, even this contention carries no force. 6. The third contention is that no sample was taken from the revisionist's shop. Mangal Ram used to sell Channey ki Dal in a Thela and the sample might have been taken from it. There is no force even in this contention because the Food Inspector and his peon clearly gave out that the sample was taken from the revisionist's shop. They also stated that the shop from where the sample of Dal was taken belongs to the revisionist. There was no such suggestion that the sample was not taken from his shop. Even in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the revisionist did not say that the shop from which the sample is said to have been taken does not belong to him. In these circumstances the presumption would be that the statements of the witnesses were correct. They fully proved that the sample was taken from the shop which belonged to the revisionist. The witnesses also gave out that Mangal Ram was the servant of the revisionist and was selling Namkeen on his behalf. By virtue of Section 7 of the Act the revisionist was vicariously liable. For all these reasons the revisionist was rightly convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 7. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the offence was committed in October 1974 and the punishment prescribed at that time had to be awarded. The revisionist was held liable only vicariously. It was his first offence. He was a petty shop-keeper and has remained in jail for about twenty days. 7. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the offence was committed in October 1974 and the punishment prescribed at that time had to be awarded. The revisionist was held liable only vicariously. It was his first offence. He was a petty shop-keeper and has remained in jail for about twenty days. I think the ends of justice would be amply met if in addition to the sentence already undergone he is made to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 8. The revision application is dismissed subject to the modification that the revisionist's conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and to a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of its payment to six months' rigorous imprisonment. The fine, if not deposited, shall be deposited within one month from the date of receipt of the record by the trial Court, failing which he will undergo the alternative punishment awarded by the lower court. Revision application dismissed.