JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and fins of Rs. 1000/- by the trial court. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge Aligarh, hence this revision. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and also perused the impugned order and record of the ease. A sample of Laha oil was purchased from the shop of the applicant on 29th October, 1976 at about 10 A.M. by the Food Inspector In accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, Lucknow whose report discloses that it contains 23.74% of Tisi Oil and also Coal-tar dye, the use whereof in edible oils was prohibited. After obtaining the sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. Both the courts below on consideration of the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case have held the guilt of the accused established beyond all reasonable doubts. 1 do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the subordinate courts. 3. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the sanction in the instant case was rot in accordance with law and that the sanctioning authority has not applied his mind. I have carefully perused the order granting sanction and the relevant papers. There is an endorsement on each of these documents that they have been seen by the Chief Medical Officer. Signatures of the Chief Medical Officer are present on these documents. On the order granting sanction also the signature of the Chief Medical Officer is there which indicates that he has seen all the relevant papers. The Food Inspector has also specifically stated in the cross-examination that all the papers were seen by the Chief Medical Officer who accorded sanction after perusing them. This has not been challenged in cross-examinations. After considering the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the sanctioning authority applied his mind to the facts of the case before according sanction. 4. Lastly it was urged by the applicant's counsel that the sentence imposed upon the applicant is too severe. Courts below have awarded the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- . 4. Lastly it was urged by the applicant's counsel that the sentence imposed upon the applicant is too severe. Courts below have awarded the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- . In default of payment of fine, the applicant shall undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. It is true that the sample in question was quite heavily adulterated inasmuch as it contained a mixture of Tisi oil to the extent of 23.74%. It is also true that the sample contained Coal-tar dye which is prohibited in edible oils. But it appears that the applicant Is not a previous convict. 5. Having perused the evidence on record and considering the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the cause of justice would be served by maintaining the conviction of the applicant for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and by reducing the sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year. The fine of Rs. 1000/- is maintained. 6. With the aforesaid modification of the sentence this revision is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence as modified by this Court.