JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order. 3. According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector had purchased the sample of Lahi Oil from the shop of the applicant on 24th December, 77 at about 1 P.M. in accordance with the provisions of law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that saponification value of the sample was in excess of the prescribed limit of 1.77.0, hence it was found to be adulterated. After obtaining sanction from the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari 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 conclusively established. 5. Counsel for the applicant however, has made a few submissions. He argued that Lahi Oil is not linseed oil. I find from the statement of the Defence witness No. 1 who has been produced by the applicant in support of his case that there is very clear admission that Lahi Oil and Sarson ka Tel is the same thing. This defence witness namely Ved Prakash himself deals in Oils and as such he is expected to have given a reliable and authentic version on this score. I have no reason to reject the admission of the witness of the defence, which completely repeals the defence contention. Further there is no cross-examination of the Food Inspector also on this aspect of the matter I do not find any merit in this contention raised by the applicant's counsel. 6. Next it is argued that under section 13(ii) of the P.F.A. Act, it is not necessary for the accused to send his sample for analysis within the period of 10 days from the date on which he received the report of the Public Analyst. The argument is that no limitation is prescribed and the application can be filed at any stage. This argument has no weight at all. The argument is that no limitation is prescribed and the application can be filed at any stage. This argument has no weight at all. It is now concluded by the authorities of this court, wherein section 13(ii) has been held as mandatory and this has also held that the application should be made by the accused within 10 days of the receipt of the report by him for re-examination of the sample. This contention is, also repelled. 7. Thirdly, it is argued that the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari is not a competent authority for granting sanction. This argument also has been repelled several times by this court which has decided that the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari is fully contended to grant sanction. This court has already considered the various Notifications referred to by the applicant's counsel and I find no reason for reconsideration of the same. The argument, therefore failed to the ground. 8. Lastly it is argued that Lahi ka Tel is primary food, and, therefore, the applicant should be given the benefit of reduced sentence under the proviso to Section 16 of the Prevention or Food Adulteration Act, I am not inclined to accept this submission at all. There can be no doubt that Lahi Oil is not primary food as described under section 2(XII-A). Primary food means any article of food being in its natural form. Lahi Oil is not a produce of agriculture in its natural form. There is no substance at all in this submission. 9. For the reasons given above, I do not find any merit in this revision, 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. The stay order passed by this court with regard to realisation of fine is hereby vacated.