JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months S.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-by the trial court. His conviction was maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, but the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him was reduced to 3 months S.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo 1 months S. I. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. 3. According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector had purchased a sample of Saunf (fennel) from the shop of the applicant at 10.30 A.M. on 13-9-1977 in accordance with the procedure prescribed bylaw. One of the sample phials was sent for report to the Public Analyst whose report disclosed that the sample was adulterated and was not according to the standard prescribed for Fennel. 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. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by them. 5. Applicants counsel has made a two fold submission. In the first place he has argued that the sanction has been mechanically granted and the sanctioning authority has not applied his mind, I find from the perusal of the statement of the Food Inspector that he has mentioned that he sent the report of the Public Analyst alongwith all the relevant papers to the Chief Medical Officer for granting sanction. The order of sanction had been written by the Chief Medical Officer on the back of the report of the Public Analyst. The order of the sanction indicates that the papers were seen by him when he sanctioned the prosecution. The order is duly signed and dated. He has directed that a prosecution be instituted against the accused. The statement of the Food Inspector is not challenged. I have no reason to presume that inspite of this endorsement by the Chief Medical Officer that he has seen the relevant papers, he did not care to see them and then appended his signature blindly. He has directed that a prosecution be instituted against the accused. The statement of the Food Inspector is not challenged. I have no reason to presume that inspite of this endorsement by the Chief Medical Officer that he has seen the relevant papers, he did not care to see them and then appended his signature blindly. In my opinion, the circumstances of the case and the material on the record fully justifies an inference that the Chief Medical Officer had applied his mind to the facts of the case before granting sanction. As such do not find any merit in this submission. 6. Secondly it is argued that according to the report of the Public Analyst, the organic extraneous matter exceeded the maximum permissible limit of 3 per cent. The saunf had been judged on the basis of standard prescribed for Fennel whole (Saunf). The submission is that under S. No. A.05.11 the proportion of extraneous matter including dust, dirt, stones, lumps of earth, chaff stem or straw permissible is 5% by weight and the proportion of edible seed other than the fennel shall not exceed 5% in weight. Learned counsel has argued that the report insofar as it mentions a permissible limit of 3% is incorrect. Even if this error of 3 per cent is accepted, the fact of the matter is that the report indicates that there was organic extraneous matter 8.24 per cent and inorganic extraneous matter 0.10 per cent. Thus if the rule is correctly read as permitting the existence of 5 per cent of extraneous matter, we find that the report of the Public Analyst indicates that the edible extraneous matter was 8.24% plus 0.10% i.e. 8.34 per cent. Hence it exceeded the permissible limit by 3.24 per cent. Therefore, the sample did not prescribe to the standard as laid down under the Rules. 7. Learned counsel has also argued in this connection that the proportion of edible seeds other than Fennel was not to exceed 5 per cent but the report of the Public Analyst does not make any mention of the presence of edible seeds. This argument can be very easily repelled by observing that since the Public Analyst did not find any edible seeds other than Fennel in the sample in question, it was not at all necessary for him to report their non-existent. 8. This argument can be very easily repelled by observing that since the Public Analyst did not find any edible seeds other than Fennel in the sample in question, it was not at all necessary for him to report their non-existent. 8. Extraneous matter has been classified in note appended to SI. No A.05 of the Appendix as : (a) Organic extraneous matter such as chaff, stems, straws. (b) Inorganic extraneous matter such as dust, dirt, stones lumps of earth. 9. Edible seeds other than Fennel are not included in organic extraneous matter as laid down under the Rule. They are a class by themselves ands under SI. No. A.05.11 the proportion or such edible seeds other than Fennel is not permitted to exceed 5 per cent. 10. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that no error or illegality has been committed by the court below in upholding the conviction of the accused. The applicant has already been given sufficient relief on the quantum of sentence. No further relief is called for. 11. There is no merit in this revision application, 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.