JUDGMENT R.B. Lal, J. - This revision has been filed by Imam Bux who was convicted for an offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly the Act) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ram pur and whose conviction and sentence were upheld by the Sessions Judge, Rampur. 2. Briefly stated, the facts were that on 5-11-1978 at about 8.40 A.M. the applicant was found exposing dahi on his cycle for sale. Food Inspector Sri Pratap Singh took a sample of that curd according to rules on payment of Re. 1.50 P. for 750 grams of curd. The Public Analyst analysed the sample according to the standard prescribed for buffalo milk and found that the curd contained 0.4 per cent fat and 3.29 per cent non-fatty solids. The sample was treated as adulterated. The Chief Medical Officer accorded sanction and thereafter the applicant was prosecuted. 3. The case of the accused applicant was that he was carrying separate dahi and it was not meant for sale. He did not adduce any evidence in defence. 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate did not accept the case of the accused applicant and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. An appeal to the Sessions Judge was also unsuccessful. 5. The first contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the curd was of separate milk (skimmed milk) and should have beeu judged by that standard. This contention was not accepted by the lower courts, but 1 am inclined to accept this contention for two reasons. In the papers which were prepared by the Food Inspector at the time of taking the sample, it was not mentioned that the applicant had declined to give the kind of milk with which the curd had been prepared. It was only mentioned that the sample of dahi was taken. All this indicates that the Food Inspector had no cared to ask the applicant as to the kind of milk with which the dahi was prepared. The selling price of dahi was Rs 2 per kg. The dahi of whole milk of she-buffalo could not be sold at that rate and even this circumstance should have set the Food Inspector on an enquiry which he did not care to make. The selling price of dahi was Rs 2 per kg. The dahi of whole milk of she-buffalo could not be sold at that rate and even this circumstance should have set the Food Inspector on an enquiry which he did not care to make. In cross-examination of the Food Inspector it was suggested to him that it was Mattha dahi. Hence it cannot be said that the stand taken by the applicant was an after thought. I, therefore, accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the dahi was of skimmed milk and should be judged by that standard. 6. The above finding cannot help the applicant because even by. the standard of skimmed milk it was deficient in non-fat contents. Item A.11.02.04 says that dahi, should contain fat and non-fatty solids in the same proportion as are prescribed in the standard of milk with which the dahi is prepared. The standard of skimmed milk is that the fat content should be less than 0.5 percent and the non-fatty solids content should be 8.7 per cent minimum. The sample in question had only 3.29 per cent solids non-fat. Hence, the deficiency of this ingredient was about 8.60 per cent and the curd was adulterated within the meaning of this word contained in Clause (i-a) of section 2 of the Act. 7. The next contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the sanction granted by the Chief Medical Officer, Rampur (Ex. Ka-6) was not a valid sanction because the said officer had not applied his mind to the facts of the case while according sanction. The sanction was accorded in a mechanical manner. In this connection it has been pointed out that the blanks in the sanction were filled in by typing and only the signatures of the Chief Medical Officer appear in his hand. 1 he Food Inspector Pratap Singh (P.W. 1) stated that he had sent the papers Exs. Ka-1 to Ka-4 and his report regarding grant of sanction (Ex. Ka-o) to the Chief Medical Officer, and it was on a consideration of these papers that the Chief Medical Officer Dr. D.K. Nanda had accorded the sanction Ex. Ka-6. Papers Ex. Ka-1 to Ka-3 were the papers which were prepared at the time of the taking of the sample and Ex. Ka-4 was the report of the Public Analyst. Ka-o) to the Chief Medical Officer, and it was on a consideration of these papers that the Chief Medical Officer Dr. D.K. Nanda had accorded the sanction Ex. Ka-6. Papers Ex. Ka-1 to Ka-3 were the papers which were prepared at the time of the taking of the sample and Ex. Ka-4 was the report of the Public Analyst. The printed recital in the sanction says that the sanction was being granted on consideration of all the papers. Simply on this averment it cannot be presumed that the Chief Medical Officer had not taken the papers forwarded by the Food Inspector into consideration before according the permission. It may also be pointed out that in the report Ex. Ka-5 submitted to the Food Inspector he had narrated all the facts regarding taking of the sample. 8. On a consideration of these facts and circumstances I am of the view that the sanction Ex. Ka-6 was granted by the Chief Medical Officer after applying his mind and the sanction is valid. 9. The next point urged by the learued counsel is that the sentence may be reduced under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 16 of the Act. I am afraid this proviso cannot help the applicant. Clause (1) of this proviso applies to an article of food which is primary food as defined in clause (xii-a) of section 2 of the Act. One of the ingredients of the definition of primary food is that the article of food should be in its natural form. This ingredient is not fulfilled in the case of curd because it is prepared by processing milk in a particular way. The sentence awarded by the Magistrate was the minimum sentence and it cannot legally be reduced. 10. No other submission has been made. 11. In the result, the revision application has no merit and is hereby dismissed. The applicant Imam Bux shall surrender to the Magistrate concerned and serve out the sentence according to law.