JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under sections 7(i)/16 and 7(iii)/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He has been sentenced to 6 months' R I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, on the first count and 3 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs, 500/- on the second count. Both the sentences to run concurrently. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Rampur. Hence this revision. 2. According to the prosecution case, the Food Inspector Mohd. Haneef inspected the flour-Mill belonging to the applicant and found him selling wheat flour which he suspected to be adulterated. He also found him selling edible oil, without any licence. He purchased a sample of flour in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials which was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst disclosed that the flour was deficient in glutine contents by 2.3 per cent. After obtaining sanction for prosecution from the Chief Medical Officer, Rampur the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as above. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders. 4. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the wheat flour of which a sample was taken by the Food Inspector was not meant for sale and as such the conviction of the applicant was not tenable in law. It is not disputed that the applicant was running a flour Mill. From a careful perusal of the statement of the Food Inspector, it is clear that the place from where he had taken the sample of atta was near the grinding mill The case of the applicant as given out in his statement under section 313 Cr: P.C. was that the flour of which a sample was taken from the accused did not belong to him but belonged to persons who had left their wheat for being ground.- Three witnesses were produced in defence. Out of these, Gurmekh Singh has clearly stated that he had given his wheat for being ground and that the same had been kept in patili, from which the sample was taken. Even Habib P.W. 2 has admitted that the flour from which the sample was taken was kept in Chaadar (Sheet). The statement of the Food Inspector also indicates that he bad actually seen other people at flour mill. Even Habib P.W. 2 has admitted that the flour from which the sample was taken was kept in Chaadar (Sheet). The statement of the Food Inspector also indicates that he bad actually seen other people at flour mill. The wheat belonging to customers was kept there for being ground. In this state of evidence, I do not find any reason why the defence plea should not have been accepted. At any rate the circumstances of the case do indicate that in all probabilities the atta from which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector belonged to one of the customers and was not meant for sale The Food Inspector had not cited any specific instance of sale of the atta by the accused-applicant in his presence. In my opinion, therefore, this is a fit case in which the benefit of doubt should have been given to the applicant. 5. With regard to the sale of edible oil, the prosecution case stands on different footing. It has been stated by the Food Inspector that the applicant was selling the edible oil. The accused in his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. has not given any explanation with regard to this charge. The Food Inspector has further stated that a licence was required for the sale of edible oil, which could not be produced by the accused. No licence has been filed on behalf of the applicant. There can be no doubt that under Rule 50 of the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, a licence was required before a person could sell edible oils. Therefore, so far as offence under section 7(i)(iii) read with section t6 of the P.F.A. Act is concerned the applicant has been rightly convicted. The sentence of 3 months' R.I. and the fine of Rs. 500/- imposed thereunder, is the minimum sentence provided by law. 6. Learned counsel has raised the question of validity of sanction also. He argued that the Sanctioning Authority has not applied his mind to the facts of the case before granting sanction. I have perused the relevant documents and the evidence on the record. It appears that all the papers regarding sanction were sent to the Chief Medical Officer and that after perusing the same he accorded sanction. Mere omissions of edible oils in the order granting sanction is not sufficient to vitiate the sanction. I have perused the relevant documents and the evidence on the record. It appears that all the papers regarding sanction were sent to the Chief Medical Officer and that after perusing the same he accorded sanction. Mere omissions of edible oils in the order granting sanction is not sufficient to vitiate the sanction. I am satisfied that the sanction was granted by the C.M.O. concerned, after perusing the relevant papers. 7. This revision application is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant for the offence under section 7(i)/16 of the P.F.A. Act and the sentences imposed thereunder are set aside, but the conviction of the applicant for the offence under section 7(i)(iii)/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentences imposed thereunder are maintained. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of his sentence of imprisonment, as ordered by this Court. The interim order dated 21-11-1979 staying realisation of fine, is hereby vacated.