JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - The revisionist Riyasat Ali has been convicted under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default further R.I. for two months. The conviction and sentence were affirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar. 2. The prosecution case was that the revisionist was found selling buffallo milk at about 8.00 a.m. on 24-10-1977 in Gandhi Colony, Muzaffarnagar and a sample of the said milk was taken for analysis by R.P. Atri, Chief Food Inspector. On analysis, this milk was found to contain 5.2 per cent fatty contents as against the prescribed 6 per cent and 7 per cent non-fatty solid contents as against the prescribed 9 per cent. After sanction of the Chief Medical Officer, the appellant was prosecuted. 3. The revisionist's case, in defence, was that he was only a carrier of milk sent by one Dhoom Singh of his village, to a relation Arvind Kumar alias Raj in town. The prosecution examined the Food Inspector and a witness Sushil Kumar. The revisionist in defence examined Dhoom Singh and Raj. The prosecution version was believed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist pressed three points in revision. It was contended that the trial was vitiated because specific degree of shortage in the milk, according to the public analyst's report, was not put to the accused during his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. The actual question put was that the milk was found to be adulterated according to the public analyst's report (Ext. Ka-4). The reply was that he had not adulterated in any way. In my opinion, the question put gave sufficient notice of the circumstance of public analyst's report to the applicant. This was not a case where the pointed specification or the precise extent of shortage from the prescribed standard was of any consequence. Nor his omission to specify this, in fact, led to any prejudice for the extent of shortage is not at all relevant for the points at issue. The only relevant point is that the milk was found to be sub-standard. This was duly put to the accused. 5. The next point urged was the sanction to prosecute was defective. Nor his omission to specify this, in fact, led to any prejudice for the extent of shortage is not at all relevant for the points at issue. The only relevant point is that the milk was found to be sub-standard. This was duly put to the accused. 5. The next point urged was the sanction to prosecute was defective. In this case, the application for sanction had been filled in by the Chief Food Inspector who has noted all the particulars on the prescribed printed form (Ext. Ka-5) and passed it on to the Chief Medical Officer with the recommendation "prosecution may be sanctioned". The Chief Medical Officer has then signed a typed order saying that the papers had been seen and prosecution against the accused was sanctioned. I cannot agree that the omission to name the person who was to file the complaint vitiates the sanction. The complaint, in fact, was filed by the Chief Food Inspector but after this sanction it could be filed by anyone legally competent to do so under section 20 and notifications issued under that provision. The sanction is found to be in order. 6. Lastly, it was contended that there has been a breach of section 13(2) of the Act. The Food Inspector in his evidence deposed that a copy of the analysis report with the notice Ext. Ka-8 was forwarded to the accused by the office of the Chief Medical Officer and a copy of the covering letter-cum-notice Ext. Ka-8 was endorsed to him also. Though the notice is dated 20-1-78 which is the date on which the prosecution was launched this endorsement mentions that in fact this cover was despatched under registration receipt No. 785 dated 28-1-78. This too would be within 10 days of the institution of the prosecution. The address on this notice is the same as that on the sample taking papers. The only point elicited during cross-examination about this piece of evidence was that the Food Inspector had not filed the registration receipt or the acknowledgement. This in no way discredits the evidence about sending of the analyst's report and the notice. Section 13(2) as well as R.I. 9-A, therefore must be found to have been fully complied. No other point was argued. 7. The revision, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. This in no way discredits the evidence about sending of the analyst's report and the notice. Section 13(2) as well as R.I. 9-A, therefore must be found to have been fully complied. No other point was argued. 7. The revision, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The revisionist who was admitted to bail in revision per order dated 8-9-80 shall be got arrested immediately to serve out the sentence in accordance with law.