JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/1 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he has been awarded six months' R.I. further. In appeal his conviction and sentence have been maintained by the Sessions Judge Moradabad. Hence this revision. 2. According to the prosecution case a sample of buffalo milk, which the applicant was carrying in two drums, on 3rd July, 1977 at 10 A.M. was purchased by the Food Inspector in accordance with the procedure prescribed bylaw. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. His report disclosed that it was deficient in fat contents to the extent of 62% and in non-fatty solids to the extent of 20%. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. I have heard counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. Learned counsel has assailed the sanction. His submission is that the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind. From a perusal of the judgment of the Sessions Judge I find that he has observed therein that all the relevant documents in connection with the sanction were seen by the Sanctioning Authority and the word 'Seen' has been written on them. No affidavit has been filed in this Court to doubt the observations made by the Sessions Judge. I, therefore, have to take the statement of fact as correct. In this view of the matter it is futile to contend that the Sanctioning Authority did not apply his mind. 4. The nest argument is with regard to the non-compliance of Section 10(7) of the Act. The Supreme Court has already held that even if the Food Inspector does not call the witnesses of the locality to witness the sale that by itself will not vitiate the trial. In the instant case the testimony of the Food Inspector has been relied upon by both the courts below. I have no reason to doubt the correctness of the findings arrived thereon. Moreover, it is also obvious from the impugned order that the applicant did not deny the taking of the sample from him. He admitted his signature on the relevant documents. I have no reason to doubt the correctness of the findings arrived thereon. Moreover, it is also obvious from the impugned order that the applicant did not deny the taking of the sample from him. He admitted his signature on the relevant documents. These facts are also obvious from the judgment, which has not been challenged on behalf of the applicant. As such, in my opinion, there is no merit in the contention concerning non-compliance of the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act. 5. On the question of sentence, I am not inclined to give any relief to the applicant because the minimum sentence provided by the Act has already been awarded. 6. There is no merit in this revision which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him. The interim order staying realisation of fine passed on 17th October, 1979 is hereby vacated.