JUDGMENT P.N.Bakshi, J. 1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 7 (i) and Section 7 (iii) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each count. His conviction has been maintained in appeal but the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him has been reduced to 3 months' R. I. and fine to Rs. 500/- on each count. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo 2 months' R. I. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently, hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. According to the prosecution case, the applicant was carrying three cans of milk on his cycle for sale near village Bhojpur when its sample was purchased by the Food Inspector in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The milk was kept in three dry clean bottles after adding the necessary preservative. One of these sample-bottles was sent for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample was deficient in fat contents as also in non-fatty solids by about -8 per cent each. After obtaining the sanction for prosecution, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. Counsel for the applicant has argued that the sanction for prosecution is legally defective. The sanctioning authority has not applied his mind to the facts of the case. I have perused the order, granting sanction (Ex. Ka-5). The sanction has been granted by the District Medical Officer of Health, Saharanpur. It is mentioned in the said order that the papers along with the Food Inspector's report have been seen by the Sanctioning Authority. After considering the same, he has permitted the prosecution to be instituted against the applicant. I find no reason to disbelieve the contents of Ex. Ka-5. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has said that since the order granting sanction is a typed document, and the Sanctioning Authority has merely appended his signature thereon, it should be taken that the Medical Officer of Health has not applied his mind before granting sanction. I do not agree with this submission. No particular form of sanction has been prescribed. Learned counsel for the applicant has said that since the order granting sanction is a typed document, and the Sanctioning Authority has merely appended his signature thereon, it should be taken that the Medical Officer of Health has not applied his mind before granting sanction. I do not agree with this submission. No particular form of sanction has been prescribed. It is not an unusual feature for a senior officer to dictate an order and for the clerk to type out and to place it before him for his signature. This appears to have been done in the instant case. I am satisfied that the sanction granted by the Medical Officer of Health, Saharanpur was a valid sanction in accordance: with law and not a mechanical one. Learned counsel for the applicant has then brought to my notice Rule: 16 (a) (b) (c) framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, prior to its Amendment in 1977. On its basis, he has urged that the sample taken from the applicant was not packed and sealed in accordance with the directions given in these rules. He has argued that after the sample-bottle had been securely fastened, it was to be wrapped completely with a fairly strong thick paper. Thereafter, it was to fee further secured by strong twine or thread and sealed at least at four distinct places. One of the seals was to be an the top of the packet, one at the bottom and two others on the body of the packet. The knots of twine were to be covered by sealing wax bearing the impression of the seal of the sender. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also brought to my notice the findings of the Sessions Judge to show that the sealing of the sample was not done in accordance with these directions. He has thus argued that there was ample scope for the Food Inspector to tamper with the sample-bottle before sending it for analysis to the Public Analyst. 6. Rule 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is merely directory. It lays down the method by which the sample is to be packed and sealed. He has thus argued that there was ample scope for the Food Inspector to tamper with the sample-bottle before sending it for analysis to the Public Analyst. 6. Rule 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is merely directory. It lays down the method by which the sample is to be packed and sealed. There can be no doubt that these directions are meant to be carried out by the Food Inspector while taking a sample, but law also provides ample safeguards to the citizens, in case the directions regarding the packing and sealing of the sample are not strictly followed and a suspicion is raised in the mind of the accused that the sample bottle had been tampered with by the Food Inspector. Under the law, as it existed then, the sample was to be divided into 3 parts and then separately bottled, packed and sealed. One of these sample-bottles was given to the accused. This was obviously for this protection. He had a right to get the sample tested by having it sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, in case he had the slightest doubt that the specimen sample in the possession of the Food Inspector had been tampered and was not the correct specimen, which has been purchased from him on the date of the incident. In this view of the matter, 1 am of the opinion that even if the finding of the Sessions Judge is accepted that the sample-phial was not properly sealed, that would not have any effect upon the merits of the case. The applicant did not care to have his sample-phial sent for analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, and as such it does not lie in his mouth to speculate that the phial sent by the Food Inspector had been tampered with and changed, prior to its despatch. Under Rule 17, the container of the sample was to be sent to the Public Analyst by registered post or railway- parcel in a sealed packet, enclosed together with a memorandum in Form-7 in an outer cover addressed to the Public Analyst. Under Rule 18, a copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal, used for sealing the packet, should be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him in person. Under Rule 18, a copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal, used for sealing the packet, should be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him in person. In the instant case, the report of the Public Analyst discloses that the seal affixed on the container of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector. Therefore, it would be reasonable to infer that the sample which was sent by the Food Inspector for analysis to the Public Analyst was not in any way tampered with by him. The apprehension of the accused-applicant on this score is merely conjectural and imaginative. 7. Another argument addressed by the applicant's counsel is that Rule 9 (j) is mandatory, under which it was incumbent duty of the Food Inspector to send by registered post, a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused. 8. It has already been held by our court a number of time that Rule 9 (j) is merely directory and not mandatory. The applicant has failed to show that any prejudice has been caused to him, as a result of the non-compliance of the Rule 9 (j). It may be pertinent to remember that since 1977 Rule 9 (j) has been completely deleted. In any case, even prior to this, it was open to the applicant to have sent his sample for analysis, if he doubted that the contents of the sample sent by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst had deteriorated due to lapse of time. The report of the Public Analyst in the instant case, however, indicated that the sample was in a fit condition for analysis. In these circumstances, I do not find any justification for interfering with the impugned order on this ground. Lastly the applicant's counsel has argued that Jai Singh is a poor milk vendor selling milk as a petty hawker. It has also been argued that the deficiency in the fat contents or in the non-fatty solids was very small viz. 8 percent. It has further been submitted that the applicant has been in jail for about a month already. It has also been pointed out that the applicant has been fined a total sum of Rs. 1000/- on both counts, for which he has been found guilty. 8 percent. It has further been submitted that the applicant has been in jail for about a month already. It has also been pointed out that the applicant has been fined a total sum of Rs. 1000/- on both counts, for which he has been found guilty. It has also been strenuously urged that the applicant is not a previous convict. In these circumstances, the submission is that the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone. I am inclined to agree with this submission. Since the incident in question had taken place prior to the amending Act 34 of 1976, the accused can be given the benefit of these circumstance and a lenient view would be permissible. 9. While, therefore, upholding the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Section 7 (i) and Section 7 (iii) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, I hereby reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him on each count to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- on each of the two counts is however maintained. The fine shall be paid within 3 months from today with the trial court. In the event of default, the applicant shall suffer two months' R.I. on each count.