JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Makhan has filed this revision application against judgment and order dated 27-3-1976 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mathura, confirming his conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The trial court had sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- but the lower appellate court reduced the sentence to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine is. 1,000/- and in default of its payment to six months'simple imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 29-10-1974 at about 1 P.M. when the Food Inspector of Primary Health Centre, Sonai, District Mathura, visited the shop of Resham in the town of Raya he found the revisionist exposing for sale Khoya in a Parat. This Khoya weighed about 15 Kgs. and was said to have been prepared from buffalo milk. The Inspector purchased 600 grains of Khoya and paid Rs. 4.80 as its price in the manner prescribed. It was divided into three parts, each of which was kept in three separate phials. One phial was given to the revisionist and the other one was sent to the Public Analyst who found it to be deficient in fat contents. After obtaining the requisite sanction of the District Medical Officer of Health the revisionist was sent up for trial. 3. The revisionist denied the said charge, though he admitted that the sample of Khoya was taken by the Inspector. According to him the Khoya was prepared not from buffalo milk but from sheep milk. Some medicine was also mixed in it as it was not meant for human consumption but was prepared for medical purposes, for a bullock who had fractured its leg. Chandra Bhan and Budh Sen were examined in support of his contention. 4. The learned trial court believed the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced the revisionist as aforesaid. 5. There is no controversy that the Food Inspector had taken sample of Khoya, which the revisionist was having at the shop. There is also no dispute that it was found to be deficient in fat contents by the Public Analyst and was adulterated within meaning of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 6. The crucial point for consideration is whether this Khoya was exposed for sale or was prepared for use by a bullock. There is also no dispute that it was found to be deficient in fat contents by the Public Analyst and was adulterated within meaning of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 6. The crucial point for consideration is whether this Khoya was exposed for sale or was prepared for use by a bullock. The Inspector gave out that the sample was taken from a huge quantity of Khoya weighing about 15 Kgs. The revisionist was sitting on the shop and transacting business of its sale. He was fully corroborated by Ram Gopal (P.W. 2). I have not been referred to any such infirmity in his statement on the basis of which his testimony may be disbelieved. The defence witnesses failed to impress the court with the truth of their statements. The learned trial court rightly disbelieved them. Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that the Khoya, from which the sample was purchased, was meant for sale and not for use of cattle. 7. There is nothing on the record to warrant that the Khoya was prepared from sheep milk. All the papers show that it was alleged to have been prepared from buffalo milk and the standard prescribed for it was applied. 8. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the requirement of Rule 22 was not complied with inasmuch as the prescribed quantity of Khoya was not taken by the Food Inspector. The quantity sent to the Public Analyst was 200 grams when the Rule prescribed that it should be 250 grams. In the case of State of Kerala v. A. Mohammad, 1978 (1) F.A.C. 145 this question has been considered at a great length and their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that Rule 22 is not mandatory. It is directory. If the quantity of the sample is less than prescribed it is for the Public Analyst to say whether it is fit for analysis or not. The case cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that the quantity sent was less than prescribed. In the instant case the Public Analyst inspite of lesser quantity had found it to be fit for analysis and there is no reason why reliance should not be placed on his report. 9. The case cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that the quantity sent was less than prescribed. In the instant case the Public Analyst inspite of lesser quantity had found it to be fit for analysis and there is no reason why reliance should not be placed on his report. 9. Lastly, it is urged that the sanction by the District Medical Officer of Health was given in a mechanical manner inasmuch as all the papers do not seem to have been placed before him. He does not appear to have applied his mind to the same. The sanction form was filled in by the Inspector and the District Medical Officer of Health simply affixed his signature. I am unable to subscribe to this view because the lower portion of the form which relates to the sanction clearly states that all the relevant papers were seen. The name of the revisionist and other particulars of the case are mentioned in it. Therefore, the sanction cannot be attacked on any score. 10 The learned counsel for the revisionist has prayed for reduction of the sentence because the revisionist is not a previous convict. The offence was committed on 29-10-1974 when the minimum sentence prescribed was three months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-. I think the ends of justice would be amply met if the sentence is reduced to the same. 11. 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 three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of its payment to three months' further simple imprisonment. He is on bail and will surrender in court, failing which he will be taken into custody to serve out his sentence.