JUDGMENT J.P. Chaturvedi, J. - This is a revision against a judgment and order of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri dismissing an appeal of the applicant Man Singh against his conviction for an offence punishable under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act with the modification that the applicant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, shall further undergo two months R.I. instead of undergoing a substantive sentence of one year's R.I. and pay a fine of Rs 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months as awarded by the trial Court. 2. The prosecution case was that on 26th of December, 1977 at 12 in the noon, V.P. Chaudhary, Food Inspector, found the applicant Man Singh carrying buffalo milk in a can on a cycle for sale on Karnal road, Mainpuri. The Food Inspector gave him a notice in form No. 6 and purchased 660 ml. litres of buffalo milk from the applicant for a sum of Rs. 1.50 p. and obtained a receipt for the price paid. He divided the sample milk in three parts and packed and sealed each part in a phial. He sent one of the sample phials alongwith form No. 7 to the public analyst and the remaining two phials to the Local Health Authority. The public analyst reported in his report Ext. ka-4 that the sample milk was deficient in fatty contents by 22% and in non-fatty solids by 32% and was, therefore, adulterated. After obtaining the usual sanction from the Local Health Authority, a complaint was made against the applicant. 3. In the trial Court, the applicant pleaded not guilty. He examined Ved Prakash in defence. 4. The prosecution examined V.P. Chaudhary, Food Inspector as well as Chandrika Singh and Keshav Saran P.Ws. 2 and 3 respectively. 5. Relying upon the prosecution evidence the trial Court as well as the appellate Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him as already stated. 6. He examined Ved Prakash in defence. 4. The prosecution examined V.P. Chaudhary, Food Inspector as well as Chandrika Singh and Keshav Saran P.Ws. 2 and 3 respectively. 5. Relying upon the prosecution evidence the trial Court as well as the appellate Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him as already stated. 6. The judgments of the courts below have been assailed on three main grounds namely, that there was no compliance of rules 17 and 18 of the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, that there was no compliance of the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the P.F. Act, and that there was no compliance of section 20 of the same Act. These objections may be considered in the serial order in which they have been mentioned. 7. R.I. 17 requires that the sealed container of one part of the sample for analysis and memorandum in form No. 7 shall be sent in a sealed packet to the public analyst immediately but not later than succeeding date by any suitable means. It also provides that the remaining two sealed containers and two copies of the memorandum shall be sent in a sealed cover to the Local Health Authority immediately but not later than the succeeding working day by suitable means. 8. R.I. 18 provides that a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal shall be sent to the public analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or any person authorised by him. 9. In the present case as stated by V.P. Chaudhary, Food Inspector (P.W.l), the sealed container was sent by registered parcel on 27-12-1977 to public analyst. The memorandum and the impression of the seal were sent separately by registered post to the public analyst. The report of the public analyst refers to the sample container having been received properly sealed and fastened and that the seal was intact and unbroken. It also shows that the sample seal and the seal on the container tallied. Sri Chaudhary has also stated that he sent the two other containers and the two copies of the memorandum to the Local Health Authority. Thus the evidence establishes beyond doubt that the rules had been complied with. This objection was also dealt with by the lower appellate Court and has been rightly rejected by it. 10. Sri Chaudhary has also stated that he sent the two other containers and the two copies of the memorandum to the Local Health Authority. Thus the evidence establishes beyond doubt that the rules had been complied with. This objection was also dealt with by the lower appellate Court and has been rightly rejected by it. 10. As to the next contention namely, non-compliance of sub-section (7) of Section 10, it may be pointed out that V.P. Chaudhary (P.W.l) stated that several persons had collected at the scene of occurrence and that he called upon them to become witness to the purchase of the sample milk but none of them was willing to do so. Sub-section (7) of Section 10 enjoins upon the Food Inspector merely to call at least one witness of the locality and since Sri Chaudhary had called upon the persons to become witness, the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 10 have been fully complied with. 11. The third objection relating to the sanction is too vague to be considered. It has been merely stated that the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind and granted sanction in a mechanical way. After carefully considering this objection, 1 am unable to find any material in support of this objection. This objection has also, therefore, no merit. 12. The revision has no force and is dismissed. The conviction of the applicant and sentence awarded by the lower appellate Court are maintained. The applicant is on bail to which he shall surrender. He shall be taken into custody to serve out his sentence. The stay order dated 18-9-1980 is hereby vacated.