JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi., J. - The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-by the trial court. In default of payment of fine he is to undergo six months R. I. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard counsel for the applicant and have also scrutinised the record of the case. 3. Very briefly stated the facts of the case are that a sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant at about 8.30 A.M. on 27th October 1975 in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent to the Public Analyst whose report disclosed that it contained 5.3% fat and 7.8% non-fatty solids, thus, it was deficient in fat contents by 12% and in non-fatty solids by 13 per cent judged from the standard of buffalo milk. After obtaining 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 come to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused has been fully established. I do not find any illegality or perversity recorded by them. 4. Counsel for the applicant has argued that the sanction is defective inasmuch as the sanctioning authority has not applied his mind to the facts of the case. I have seen the relevant papers in this connection and also the evidence of the Food Inspector. Sri R. P. Kulshrestha Food inspector had stated that all the relevant documents were sent by him for the consideration of the sanctioning authority. I find that on these documents the word seen has been stamped and the sanctioning authority has signed them all. Moreover, in the order of sanction also there is a mention that the sanctioning authority has considered the relevant documents before according sanction. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the sanction was granted after application of the mind by the sanctioning authority. 5. Learned counsel has then argued that the provisions of Section 10 (7) of the P. F. Act have been infringed. Here again, there is nothing on the record to indicate that the Food Inspector has any animus against the applicant. 5. Learned counsel has then argued that the provisions of Section 10 (7) of the P. F. Act have been infringed. Here again, there is nothing on the record to indicate that the Food Inspector has any animus against the applicant. Even independent witnesses were not produced. There is nothing in law to bar the statement of the Food Inspector, who has been found to be a reliable witness. In these circumstances, even non-compliance of Section 10 (7) of the Act will not vitiate the trial. 6. Lastly counsel for the applicant has argued on the question of sentence. It is true that the milk in question was adulterated in fat and nonfatty solids, but that it is only to the extent of 12% and 13%. The incident is of 27th October 1975, prior to the passing of the Act 34 of 1976. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the applicant is a previous convict. The applicant has been in jail already for ten days. Having regard to all these circumstances, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be served by maintaining the conviction of the applicant for the offence under section 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act but by reducing the sentence of imprisonment from six months R. I. to three months R. I. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained. 7. With the above modification in sentence, this revision is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence of imprisonment as modified by this Court.