ORDER P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he has been directed to undergo further period of 3 months' R.I: His conviction has been maintained in appeal by the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah, but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to 3 month's R.I. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- was maintained. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders and the record of the case. It appears that sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector at about 7 p.m. on 11th May, 1975 from the shop of the applicant, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that it was deficient in fat contents by 45 par cent and in non-fatty solids by 26 per cent. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. Both the courts below have on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the ca9e come to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused is fully established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by them. 4. Counsel for the applicant has argued that the sanction in the instant case was not valid in as much as the sanctioning authority had not applied his mind to the facts of the case. I have carefully perused the relevant papers concerning the grant of sanction by the Medical Officer (Health) Kashganj There is an endorsement on each of these relevant documents to the effect "Seen" in green ink and has also been signed by the Sanctioning Authority. Even while granting the sanction in his order dated 25th October, 19 75, there is writing to the effect that the Medical Officer (Health) has seen all the connected papers before according his sanction. The Food Inspector has deposed that all relevant papers have been sent to him. In this state of evidence it is not possible to hold that the Sanctioning Authority has applied his mind to the facts of the case before granting sanction for prosecution. The Food Inspector has deposed that all relevant papers have been sent to him. In this state of evidence it is not possible to hold that the Sanctioning Authority has applied his mind to the facts of the case before granting sanction for prosecution. In my opinion, there is no merit in this contention. 5. On the question of sentence, I find that the Sessions Judge has already taken a lenient view and has reduced the sentence of imprisonment from 6 months' R.I. to 3 months' R.I, The adulteration in the instant is rather heavy. The sample of milk was found deficient in fat contents by 45 per cent and in non-fatty solids by 26 per cent. In these circumstances, no interference is called for on the question of sentence. The order with regard to the payment of fine of Rs. 1000/ is also maintained. 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. The record shall be transmitted to the court below within 3 weeks from today. The Chief Judicial Magistrate shall report compliance of my order within 4 months from today.