JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he is to undergo 12 months' simple imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Budaun. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector purchased Haldi (Turmeric) from the applicant's shop in accordance with law. He divided the sample into three parts, one of which was sent by him for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample was coloured with lead chromate. After obtaining necessary sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. I have heard counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. The applicant's counsel has argued that the sanction in the instant case was not accorded by the District Medical Officer of Health but by the Deputy C.M.O. and as such the sanction was invalid. This argument has been dealt with by the Sessions Judge. I have carefully perused the reasons given by him. In my opinion, the Deputy C.M.O. was fully authorised to grant sanction. 4. It is next argued that the quantity of the sample taken was not in accordance with Rule 22 of P.F.A. Rules. This matter has already been decided by the Supreme Court and it has been held that Rule is directory. Neither the Public Analyst nor the Director, Central Food Laboratory objected that the sample was insufficient for analysis; as such there is no merit in this submission also. 5. It is next argued that the trial court has wrongly refused the request of the accused to send his sample of Haldi for analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. It appears that such a request was in fact made by the applicant, which was turned down by the trial court. However, the appellate court conceded to this request and had not sent the sample in the possession of the accused for analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. It appears that such a request was in fact made by the applicant, which was turned down by the trial court. However, the appellate court conceded to this request and had not sent the sample in the possession of the accused for analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. It may also be mentioned that the official second sample phial which had been received back from the Public Analyst, Lucknow, had also been sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis. On receipt of both these reports from the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, the appellate court also came to the conclusion that the sample was adulterated since it contained lead chromate. Not only the report of the Public Aualyst indicates that the test for lead chromate was positive but also both the reports of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta are also to the same effect. In Column No. 4 lead is mentioned and in column No. 5 test for Chromate is mentioned. The result of the test in both cases is positive. Learned counsel has argued that this test may be of some other Chromate but not of lead Chromate. This argument to my mind is too imaginative to be accepted. The only fair interpretation of these reports is that test for lead chromate gave positive indications. 6. Next, the applicant's counsel has argued that the appellate court was not justified in taking additional evidence without allowing the accused an opportunity of leading further evidence in rebuttal. I am unable to appreciate this argument at all. It was the accused himself who made a grievance before the appellate court that his sample phial had not been sent for analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, in spite of his request being made to the Magistrate. His request was considered by the appellate court and the sample was sent for analysis. This was the sample in the possession of the accused himself which was analysed by the Director. I do not understand how he has been deprived of his opportunity of leading evidence or has been prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. In my opinion, there is no merit in this contention. 7. Lastly the learned counsel has argued the question of sentence. In my opinion, the sentence in the instant case errs on the aid of leniency. I do not understand how he has been deprived of his opportunity of leading evidence or has been prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. In my opinion, there is no merit in this contention. 7. Lastly the learned counsel has argued the question of sentence. In my opinion, the sentence in the instant case errs on the aid of leniency. Instead of being awarded rigorous imprisonment, which is ordinarily ordered, the courts below have only directed the applicant to only simple imprisonment. I do not find any ground for further leniency in the matter. 8. There is no merit in this revision which is hereby dismissed. The applicant shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment. The interim order granted by this court on 7-10-1975 staying realisation of fine is hereby cancelled. The record of the case shall be sent down to the court below within three weeks from today.