JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. -The applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 (l)(a)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by Munsif Magistrate, Amroha and sentenced to six months' Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Moradabad, hence this revision. 3. I have heard the counsel for the applicant and have also perused the Impugned order and the record of the case. 4. Very briefly stated the prosecution story is that the Food Inspector found the applicant selling Bhura on 3-5-1977 in Naubatkhana Market, Amroha in the afternoon. He purchased a sample of Bhura in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent for the analysis to the Public Analyst whose report disclosed that ash insoluble in dilute HC1 exceeded the maximum permissible limit of 0.5% while total sugar as sucrose is less than the permissible limit of 96.5%. The sulphur dioxide content exceeded the maximum permissible limit of 70 parts per million. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 5. Learned counsel has submitted that in the instant case the sanction was granted without application of mind by the sanctioning authority. I have very carefully scrutinised The relevant documents on the record. I find that such submission is not at all justified. On that report o the Public Analyst there is an order by the Chief Medical Officer dated 25th June, 1977 calling for all the relevant papers in connection with the offence in question. This is an elaborate order and signed by the Chief Medical Officer. The Food Inspector has deposed that the relevant papers were sent to the Chief Medical Officer. He has not been cross-examined on that question. I further find that on each of the relevant documents the word 'seen' has been endorsed and the sanctioning authority has signed them. All these circumstances lead to the conclusive inference that the Chief Medical Officer had definitely applied his mind to all the relevant documents and perused them before granting sanction for the prosecution, 6. Counsel for the applicant has lastly argued that the sentence is severe. He has pressed for application of the First Offenders Probation Act. All these circumstances lead to the conclusive inference that the Chief Medical Officer had definitely applied his mind to all the relevant documents and perused them before granting sanction for the prosecution, 6. Counsel for the applicant has lastly argued that the sentence is severe. He has pressed for application of the First Offenders Probation Act. For an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, I am not inclined to take a lenient view since these are serious social economic offences against the society. Moreover, the incident in question had taken place on 3rd May, 1977 i.e. after the enforcement of Act No. 34 of 1976. The minimum sentence which has been prescribed thereafter is six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 7. In these circumstances, no relief can be granted even on the question of sentence There is no merit in this revision. It is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of sentence. The record of the case shall be dispatched to the Court below within three weeks from today.