ORDER P.N. Bakshi, J. -The applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the P.F A Act and sentenced to 6 months' R.L, and a fine of Rs, 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo further R.L for 1 months. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Rampur. Hence this revision. 2. According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector purchased a sample of buffalo milk which the applicant was carrying in a drum on Sur Road on 8th May, 1977 at about 3 P.M. 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 the milk was deficient by 42 per cent in fat contents and by 27 per cent in non-fatty solids. After obtaining requisite sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur has acted illegally in taking cognisance of the offence. He pleaded the bar of section 458 Cr. P.C. Having scrutinised the record, I find that there is no merit in this contention at all. The occurrence had taken place on 8th May, 1977. The accused were summoned and subsequently the statement of witnesses were recorded. Charge was framed on 3rd April, 1978, thereafter it appears that the case was transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 26th June, 78. The proceedings before the Magistrate were all conducted in accordance with law. In these circumstances, the question of limitation does not arise at all. 5. Learned counsel has tried to assail the sanction granted by the Chief Medical Officer on the ground that in the order granting sanction the date when the sanction was accorded had not been mentioned at the top of the order. To my mind this is an unwarranted criticism. The sanctioning authority after perusing the relevant papers accorded his sanction by appending his signature on Ex. Ka 6. Beneath the signature he has given the date 22-9-1977. Thus this criticism has no force at all. 6. Learned counsel has also argued that independent witnesses should have been produced to corroborate the purchase of the sample by the Food Inspector. The sanctioning authority after perusing the relevant papers accorded his sanction by appending his signature on Ex. Ka 6. Beneath the signature he has given the date 22-9-1977. Thus this criticism has no force at all. 6. Learned counsel has also argued that independent witnesses should have been produced to corroborate the purchase of the sample by the Food Inspector. This is no ground for refusing to place reliance on the statement of the Food Inspector who is a wholly reliable witness. 7. The sentence awarded to the applicant is the minimum prescribed by law. No interference is called for. There Is no merit in this revision which is hereby dismissed. The interim order passed by this court on 10th September, 79 is hereby vacated. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment.