JUDGMENT J.P. Chaturvedi, J. - This is a revision against a judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, dismissing an appeal of the applicant Subedar and affirming his conviction for the offence punishable under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The trial court awarded a sentence of one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,500/- to the applicant. The lower appellate Court reduced both the sentence to six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine the applicant was to further undergo 30 days R.I. 2. The prosecution case was that on 2-4-1978 at 7.30 in the morning, near Bhogaon Railway Station, Food Inspector Ram Prakash found the applicant Subedar carrying goat milk for sale. He gave notice in form No. 6 and purchased 660 millilitres of milk on payment of Rs. 1.32 p. He divided the sample milk in three parts and packed and sealed them separately in three bottles. He obtained a receipt from the applicant of the price paid. He sent one of the phials to the public analyst, who reported that the milk was adulterated inasmuch as it contained 2.4% of fatty contents and 6.4% of non-fatty solids as against the prescribed standard of 3.5% and 9% respectively. After obtaining the usual sanction the applicant was prosecuted by means of a complaint. 3. The applicant pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution examined three witnesses, who are P.W.l Food Inspector Ram Prakash, P.W.2 Virendra Singh, and P.W.3 Keshav Ram Sharma. In his defence the applicant examined Nand Ram (D.W.l). 5. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court accepted the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and convicted and sentenced the applicant as already stated above. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant assailed the judgment of the lower appellate Court on four grounds, namely, that there was no compliance of the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act; that Virendra Singh was an unreliable witness; that the sanction was invalid as it was mechanically granted; and that the defence evidence has not been considered by the lower appellate Court at all. These objections may be considered in the serial order in which they have been mentioned. 7. These objections may be considered in the serial order in which they have been mentioned. 7. Sub-Section (7) of Section 10 of the P.F. Act enjoins upon the Food Inspector to call one or more persons at the time when any action under clause (b) of Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) or Sub-sections (4) and (6) of Section 10 is taken and take his or their signatures. In the present case the Inspector called Virendra Singh and obtained his signatures. He also stated that he asked the other persons who had collected, to become witness but they did not disclose their identity to become a witness. As such there was full compliance of the provisions of Sub section (7) of Section 10 of the P.F. Act. 8. So far as Virendra Singh is concerned, it was pointed out that he has appeared as a witness in several cases. The Food Inspector stated that he did not know Virendra Singh from before. The present instance was the first instance of Virendra Singh when he witnessed the proceedings and subsequently he became a witness in 2 or 3 other proceedings. The fact remains that so far was this instance is concerned he was wholly independent. The Food Inspector has also stated that the sample milk was taken by him and in support of the same there is documentary evidence also. The prosecution has, therefore, successfully established that the Food Inspector, Ram Prakash, purchased sample milk from the applicant and divided the same in three parts and packed and sealed them separately and sent one part to the public analyst after giving notice to the applicant and after obtaining receipt of the price paid to the applicant. There is no reason to disbelieve either Ram Prakash or Virendra Singh. 9. As to the third contention, namely the invalidity of the sanction, the prosecution examined Keshav Ram Saxena, who deposed that the Local Health Authority perused Exts. 1 to 5 and after perusing them accorded sanction for prosecution. In view of this statement of Keshav Ram Saxena, it is not open to the learned counsel for the applicant to argue that the sanction was accorded mechanically. 10. The defence evidence has been considered by the trial Court and it has given adequate reasons for rejecting it. 1 to 5 and after perusing them accorded sanction for prosecution. In view of this statement of Keshav Ram Saxena, it is not open to the learned counsel for the applicant to argue that the sanction was accorded mechanically. 10. The defence evidence has been considered by the trial Court and it has given adequate reasons for rejecting it. It has been pointed out by the trial Court that, according to the witness himself, he was at a distance from the scene of occurrence and his testimony was not clear as to what proceedings the Food Inspector had taken and what the conversation which took place between the Food Inspector and the applicant. 11. Considering all the circumstances, therefore, the prosecution has been successful in bringing home the charge to the applicant. 12. Lastly, it was contended that the sentence was severe. The learned Sessions Judge has already taken the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration and substantially reduced the sentence. There is no extenuating circumstances to reduce the sentence further. 13. The revision has, therefore, no force and is dismissed. The conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of six months' R.L and a fine of Rs. 200/- awarded by the lower appellate Court are affirmed. The applicant is on bail to which he shall surrender. He shall be taken into custody to serve out his sentence.