JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant was prosecuted under sections 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. According to the prosecution case on 16-10-1977 Chief Food Inspector, Shri B.L. Dohare, checked the shop of the applicant and suspecting the ginger (sonth) kept by the applicant for sale to be adulterated, took a sample thereof after undergoing the necessary formalities under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst and his report indicated that the sample was insect damaged to the extent of 80.9% and the sound Sonth was only 19.1%. Sanction was duly taken from the Chief Medical Officer, Orai, and thereafter prosecution was launched. The prosecution before the trial court examined the Chief Food Inspector and the Sanitary Supervisor. The accused examined one witness in defence, that is, Prem Chand. The trial court found the applicant guilty and convicted him under Sections 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced him to one years R.I. and Rs. 1000/- fine. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal. The appellate court maintained the conviction of the applicant but the sentence was reduced from one years R.I. to six months R.I. The sentence of fine was upheld. 3. In the present revision, learned counsel for the applicant has challenged the aforesaid two orders on three grounds. It has been firstly urged that as the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act were not complied with the entire trial was vitiated. As far as the aforesaid question is concerned, it was not taken before the trial court. The point was sought to be raised before the appellate court and the appellate court relying on a decision of this Court reported in 1980 (I) FAC 294 (Jaipal v. State) held that the proceedings were not vitiated. The learned counsel for the applicant in connection with this case has urged that the appellate court exercises the power of the trial court and, therefore, the aforesaid case will have no application and the point having not been raised before the trial court would not debar the applicant from raising the aforesaid point in the appeal. The learned counsel for the applicant in connection with this case has urged that the appellate court exercises the power of the trial court and, therefore, the aforesaid case will have no application and the point having not been raised before the trial court would not debar the applicant from raising the aforesaid point in the appeal. In the case of Jaipal (supra) it has been held that according to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) in so far as it provides supply of the copy of the report of the Public Analyst after institution of the case, it was necessary for the applicant to raise an objection to that effect in the trial court. It has been held that since no objection was raised on behalf of the applicant during the trial of the case that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst had not been furnished, it is not open to the applicant now to make any grievance out of it. It is thus clear that in case the objection has not been raised during the trial of the case, the applicant will not be allowed to make a grievance to that effect at a subsequent stage which will include the appeal also. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the accused in reply to the question put to him as to whether he was supplied with a copy of the report of the Public Analyst has stated that he was not supplied with that copy. In my opinion what has been laid down in the case of Jaipal (supra) is that the applicant had to raise that objection and also that as to what prejudice was caused to him at the very out set, that is, during the trial of the case. It is evident from the judgment of the trial court that no such objection or no such point was argued before the trial court. The contention raised by the learned counsel therefore, has no substance. 4. It has then been urged that the sanction granted by the Chief Medical Officer (Health) was not in accordance with law inasmuch as it was mechanical act and the Chief Medical Officer (Health) has not applied his mind. I have myself perused the record. The contention raised by the learned counsel therefore, has no substance. 4. It has then been urged that the sanction granted by the Chief Medical Officer (Health) was not in accordance with law inasmuch as it was mechanical act and the Chief Medical Officer (Health) has not applied his mind. I have myself perused the record. The report of the Public Analyst bears an endorsement of the Chief Medical Officer (Health) which clearly indicates that the Chief Medical Officer (Health) has perused the Public Analysts report at the time of granting sanction. The sanction which has been granted by the Chief Medical Officer (Health) clearly recites that he has perused the report of the Public Analyst along with other papers concerned in the case. If the Chief Medical Officer (Health) has perused the report of the Public Analyst which is evident from the endorsement made by him and also other papers in that connection, it cannot be said that granting of sanction by the Chief Medical Officer (Health) was a mechanical act and that he has not applied his mind. The aforesaid contention raised has also no force. 5. Lastly, it has been urged that the report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample was found by him to be insect damaged and that the sample also contained living and dead insects and that the examination had been done after a period of a little over one month the insect infestation in the sample must be the result of the time for which the sample was lying for over one month and that no presumption could be drawn that at the time of the checking of the sample the insect infestation was more than 5%. Reliance has been placed on a case of this Court reported in 1979 (II) FAC 91 (Radhey Lal Gupta v. State and another). 6. The aforesaid question, it has been urged, was raised before the trial court but was not raised before the appellate court. The trial court on the aforesaid question after perusing the case of Radhey Lal Gupta (supra) recorded a finding against the applicant on the basis that the case before him was distinguishable as the sample in the case of Radhey Lal Gupta was taken during rainy season while the sample in the case before him was taken in the month of October. The learned counsel appearing for the State has urged that the Public Analyst found the percentage of insect infestation in the sample to be more than 80% and that there could be no presumption that the insect infestation in the sample would have occurred because of the samples being examined after over one month and because of the presence of living insects. 7. I myself have examined one record and have gone through the statements of the witnesses in this connection. The Chief Food Inspector has been cross-examined on this question. He has specifically stated in his cross-examination that the major part of the Sonth found in the shop of the applicant was insect infested. He has also stated in his cross-examination that in his opinion the insect infestation in the sample should not have increased due to the passage of time. As far as the case relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, the aforesaid case related to an item of Sooji and the Court relying on the testimony of the Public Analyst has come to the conclusion that the insect infestation must have increased because of the passage of the time and of the fact that the sample was taken during the rainy season. In the present case in view of the fact that the sample has been taken during the month of October and also taking into account the fact that the Chief Food Inspector has clearly stated that a major portion of the Sonth was insect infested, it cannot be said that the finding recorded on this question by the trial court suffers from any illegality requiring interference in this revision. 8. No other point has been pressed before me in this revision. 9. For the reasons stated above, the present revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him. His bail bonds are cancelled.