JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant was prosecuted for committing an offence u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. According to the prosecution, Food Inspector on 26-12-74 found the applicant selling and exposing for sale, along with other articles, Haldi as well. 450 Grams of Khari Haldi was purchased by the Food Inspector in the presence of the witnesses and the same was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst reported that the Haldi was 71.04% insect infested. The concerned Chief Medical Officer gave his consent for prosecution. The Magistrate found the case of the prosecution to be proved and convicted the applicant u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced him to six months R.L and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. An appeal was thereafter preferred which has been decided by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah, who dismissed the appeal. 3. In the present revision the learned counsel for the applicant urged that the sanction granted by the District Medical Officer of Health, Etawah was mechanical and was not after applying his mind. I have myself seen Exhibit Ka. 6, the sanction and also Exhibit Ka 4, the Public Analyst's report. It is apparent from these two documents that the District Medical Officer of Health before granting the sanction had seen the report of the Public Analyst and had also filled in the particulars before granting the sanction. In my opinion, it is thus not a case where it could be said that there has been no application of mind before granting the sanction. The learned counsel in this connection placed reliance on a case reported in Bhagwan Dass v. State of U.P., 1979 (I) FAC 48. In the aforesaid case, on the basis of the documents of sanction the Court came to the conclusion that there was no application of mind. However, as stated above, in the present case there is clear evidence to show that the District Medical Officer of Health had seen the report of the Analyst and had applied his mind. The case cited has thus no application. 4. It has been urged that the Public Analyst had given the report on 11th February, 1974 when the sample was purchased on 26-12-1974. The case cited has thus no application. 4. It has been urged that the Public Analyst had given the report on 11th February, 1974 when the sample was purchased on 26-12-1974. It has been urged that the sample having been examined after about 40 days, the infestation of the insect in the Haldi may have increased during this period and that the report of the Public Analyst that the Haldi was insect infested to the extent of 71.04 per cent could not be related to the period when the sample was taken. Reliance has been placed on a case of this court reported in Radhey Lal Gupta v. State of U.P., 1979 (II) FAC 91. A bare perusal of the case would show that it was a case of Suji and it was not insect infested at the time when the sample was taken. The court had summoned the Public Analyst who had clearly stated that in Suji there may be insect infestation within a period of 15 to 30 days if it is kept in cloth. Here it is a cate of Haldi and there is absolutely no evidence on the record to show that the infestation increased during the period of tanking of the sample and examination by the Public Analyst. The argument raised by the learned counsel has, therefore, no force. 5. It has also been argued that the Public Analyst should have recorded a finding that the Haldi was not fit for human consumption and the applicant could be prosecuted only when it was proved that the Haldi, the sample of which was taken by the Food Inspector was not fit for human consumption. In my opinion, this argument too has no force in as much as Section 2 (ia) (m) provides as follows : "(ia) Adulterated-an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated - (m) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health." Further, in view of R.I. 44 (h) no person shall either by himself or by any servant or agent sell turmeric containing any foreign substance. It is thus clear that if the quality of an article falls below standard prescribed it will be deemed to be food adulteration under the aforesaid provision. It is thus clear that if the quality of an article falls below standard prescribed it will be deemed to be food adulteration under the aforesaid provision. The standard for Haldi has been prescribed in Appendix B.A.05.20. The amount of insect damaged matter shall not exceed 5 per cent by weight. The insect infested matter in the present case being over 71.04 per cent, the applicant had clearly committed an offence under the provisions of the Act. 6. Lastly, it has been urged that the sentence awarded to the applicant is too severe and requires reduction. In my opinion, the Haldi was found over 71 percent insect infested and looking to the facts and circumstances of this case the sentence awarded by the courts below cannot be said to be severe. 7. For the reasons stated above, the present revision fails and is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith failing which he shall be taken into custody to serve the sentence awarded to him. His bail bonds are cancelled.