JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he is to undergo three months R.I. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Fateh pur. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order. I have also carefully scrutinised the record of the case. 3. According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector had purchased a sample of buffalo milk from the applicant near the railway crossing at Bindki at 9.35 A.M. on 31.1.1978 in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. The sample was duly sealed and labelled. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that the sample was deficient in fat contents by 33%. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 4. Both the courts below on a 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 in the findings of fact recorded concurrently by the subordinate courts to warrant interference. Counsel for the applicant has pointed out to me the cross-examination of P.W. 2 Ashok Kumar Mishra and has argued thereon that the accused did not have any milk with him and therefore, the question of taking a sample of milk did not arise. The Magistrate has observed that there appears some mistake in the recording of the statement of the witnesses. In the instant case the statement of the witnesses was recorded by the Magistrate himself while considering the word "Abhiyukt kay pass zarasa bhi doodh nahin tha". The Magistrate has given good reasons for observing that instead of the word Sakchhi the word Abhiyukt was erroneously written by him. From a perusal of the whole statement of Ashok Kumar Misra P.W.2 before and after the disputed words, it is also obvious that the witness is deposing to the actual possession of the milk by the accused of which sample was taken by the Food Inspector. To error is human. From a perusal of the whole statement of Ashok Kumar Misra P.W.2 before and after the disputed words, it is also obvious that the witness is deposing to the actual possession of the milk by the accused of which sample was taken by the Food Inspector. To error is human. A writing error by the Magistrate cannot be stretched to absolve the accused of the offence in question was actually purchased by the Food Inspector, as deposed to by him from the accused-applicant in the manner described in his statement. 5. The applicants counsel has also argued that the sanction for prosecution was defective, inasmuch as, the sanctioning authority has not applied his mind to the facts of the case. Here again, I may observe that I have carefully scrutinised the order granting sanction, on Ex. Ka-5 which gives reference to various papers that have been submitted for the perusal of the sanctioning authority including the names of the witnesses. The Mukhya Chikitsa Adhikari has written the words "Seen". Sanction accorded separately". He has signed this endorsement which has been written in his own hand and dated 23rd March, 1978. On Ex. Ka-6 the sanction for prosecution accorded has been duly signed and dated by the C.M.O. Fatehpur. I am satisfied that the sanction in question has been granted after the sanctioning authority has fully applied his mind to the papers in connection therewith and to the facts and the circumstances relevant for the purpose of granting sanction. The order for sanction is in no manner vitiated in law. 6. So far as the sentence is concerned, the applicant has already been awarded the minimum. He has been given a fine of Rs. 1000/- and six months R.I. The extent of adulteration in buffalo milk in question was 33%. I do not find any reason to interfere even on the question of sentence. 7. There is no merit in this revision which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him. The interim order passed by this Court on 9th October, 1979 staying realisation of fine is hereby vacated.