JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant was prosecuted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. According to the prosecution the accused runs a Kirana shop at Shobhti Bazar, Najibabad. On 23-9-77 the Chief Food Inspector found the accused keeping Zeera for sale in his shop which was found to be adulterated. 600 grammes of Zeera was purchased from the accused. A sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst who reported that organic extraneous matter exceeded the maximum permissible limit. The Food Inspector thereafter sought the sanction from the Chief Medical Officer which was granted and thereafter the prosecution was launched. 2. The accused pleaded not guilty and made a statement that he had kept the Zeera in his shop not for sale but for cleaning. Before the trial court the Chief Food Inspector was examined as P.W. 1. Akhtar Hussain, Food Clerk of the Office of C.M.O. was examined as P.W. 2 and one public witness Megha Singh as P.W. 3. The trial court found the applicant guilty and convicted him under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to six months R. I. and Rs. 1000/- fine. Feeling aggrieved the applicant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Bijnor. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has challenged the aforesaid two orders firstly on the ground that the Chief Medical Officer before granting the sanction had not applied his mind. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of this Court reported in Sewal Ram v. State, 1980 (I) FAC 445. In my opinion, on the facts of the present case the aforesaid case is of no help to the applicant. A bare perusal of the sanction would show that it is on a printed form having blanks. The blanks have been typed out and the Chief Medical Officer has signed the same. In this case the prosecution has examined Akhtar P.W. 2 who is a clerk in the office of the Chief Medical Officer. Akhtar Hussain has deposed that he took the dictation of the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Bhatia and that thereafter he typed out the matter on the printed form. He has further stated that after typing, Dr. Bhatia read at again and thereafter signed it. Akhtar Hussain has deposed that he took the dictation of the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Bhatia and that thereafter he typed out the matter on the printed form. He has further stated that after typing, Dr. Bhatia read at again and thereafter signed it. From a perusal of the statement it is, therefore, clear that the sanctioning authority had applied his mind before granting the sanction. The point urged by the learned counsel has, therefore, no force. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant then urged that Zeera is a primary food and that in view of Section 2(l-a)(m) proviso the applicant could not be found guilty under Section 7/16 of P.F.A. It has not been disputed before me by the State Counsel that Zeera is a primary food. However, a bare perusal of the aforesaid section would show that every primary food falling below the prescribed standard solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, then such article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of sub-clause. From the report of the Public Analyst it is clear that Zeera was below the prescribed standard. The benefit of the proviso can be made available to the applicant only when it had been proved that the deficiency in the sample was solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of the applicant. The applicant before the trial court had taken a case that Zeera was not meant for sale and had been only kept for cleaning purposes. The two courts below have believed the evidence led by the prosecution that Zeera was exposed for sale at applicant's shop. It may be pointed out at this stage that the question raised in this revision was not raised by the applicant before the two courts below. However, I have myself gone through the evidence of the Chief Food Inspector P. W. 1 and from his statement it is clear that the Zeera was exposed for sale and that the applicant had not told the Chief Food Inspector about the fact that the Zeera was not meant for sale and had been kept only for cleaning purposes. However, I have myself gone through the evidence of the Chief Food Inspector P. W. 1 and from his statement it is clear that the Zeera was exposed for sale and that the applicant had not told the Chief Food Inspector about the fact that the Zeera was not meant for sale and had been kept only for cleaning purposes. In view of the testimony of the Chief Food Inspector, the courts below have rightly not believed the case of the applicant and thus there is no question of any benefit being derived by the applicant of the proviso to Section 2(l-a)(m) of the Act. 5. Learned counsel then urged that the punishment awarded to the applicant is on the harsher side and it should be reduced to the minimum which, according to him, is three months and Rs. 500/- fine under Section 16(1) first proviso. The learned State Counsel has conceded before me that the minimum sentence in the present case would be three months and Rs. 500/- fine. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the applicant be awarded the minimum sentence of three months R.I. and Rs. 500/- fine. In default of payment of fine the applicant shall undergo R.L for a period of one month. 6. With the modification the present revision is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He will surrender his bail bonds failing which he will be taken into custody forthwith.