JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R. I. and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo further 6 months R. I. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. 3. A sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the shop of the applicant in village khatauli at 11 P. M. on 15.12.1977 in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent for examination by the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that it was deficient in fat contents by 13 per cent and in non-fatty solids by 16 per cent. After obtaining the required sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 4. The case was listed for hearing on 25th September, 1979. On that date, it was argued by the applicants counsel that the sanction granted by the Chief Medical Officer has not been proved. He argued that an application was given for summoning the Chief Medical Officer which was wrongly rejected by the court. He prayed that the Chief Medical Officer be summoned, so that he may cross-examine with regard to the certain entries in the order granting sanction he also prayed that the Food Inspector be recalled so that he may be subjected to further cross-examination with respect to the condition of the milk of which a sample was taken. I allowed both these prayers and directed the court below to summon both these witnesses and to allow an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine them. The evidence recorded by the court below has now been tendered to this court. On a perusal of the statement of Chief Medical Officer, I am fully satisfied that the sanction which was granted for prosecution of the applicant was a valid sanction granted in accordance with law. The Chief Medical Officer has completely applied his mind to the facts of the case and the relevant papers on the record, which was submitted for consideration before he accorded sanction. In my opinion, that sanction was a perfectly valid sanction. 5. The Chief Medical Officer has completely applied his mind to the facts of the case and the relevant papers on the record, which was submitted for consideration before he accorded sanction. In my opinion, that sanction was a perfectly valid sanction. 5. Counsel for the applicant has argued today that in view of the decision of learned Single-Judge of this court, reported in 1980 A. L. J. page 181 it was the duty of the Food Inspector to ask the accused to disclose the nature of the milk which was taken by him as sample for analysis. It is not necessary for me to express myself on the legal question, whether such a duty is cast upon the Food Inspector or not in the circumstances of the present case.I find from the statement of the Food Inspector, that he has very clearly mentioned therein that at the time he took the sample, he asked the applicant whether it is cow milk or the milk of buffalo the applicant expressed his inability to give any opinion in that respect. Therefore, even if it is accepted that a duty is cast upon Food Inspector to enquire with regard to the nature of the milk, I am satisfied that he did make the relevant inquiry but the accused-applicant did not have any satisfactory reply. The result was that the sample had to be judged from the standard of milk of buffalo. The Public Analyst found the fat content in the sample was 5.2 per cent and in non-fatty solids was 7.6 per cent. Thus, there was a clear distinction of 23 per cent in fat contents and 16 per cent in non-fatty solids. As such, I am of the opinion, that the sample of milk did not conform to the standard prescribed by law. As such the courts below have held that the sample was adulterated. 6. Counsel for the applicant has raised an argument that standard should be prescribed for boiled milk, depending upon the extent to which it is boiled. That to my mind is an impossible task. Milk can be boiled at various degrees of the temperature and it is practically impossible to lay down its varying constituents with a difference of each degree of temperature. That to my mind is an impossible task. Milk can be boiled at various degrees of the temperature and it is practically impossible to lay down its varying constituents with a difference of each degree of temperature. The law has prescribed a standard for boiled milk at No. A.11.0104 and that standard has been accepted as the applicable standard for all types of boiled milk irrespective of the extent of temperature at which it has been boiled. In certain cases, however, for instance in pasteurised milk, or sterilised milk, the extent of temperature has also been given, but for boiled milk, there is no such temperature prescribed. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that it is incumbent upon the seller to prescribe to the standard of boiled milk given under the serial number of the appendix mentioned above and a failure to do so, brings him within the clutches of law. 7. The sentences of six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- is the minimum sentence prescribed by law and no reduction in this respect is possible. There is thus, 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 interim order granted by this court on 25th May, 1979 staying realisation of fine is hereby vacated.