JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant was prosecuted under Sections 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration"Act. 2. On 20-11-1976 at 12.30 p.m. Shri Chet Ram Paliwal, Food Inspector, Mahoba, went to the shop of the applicant where he found that groundnut and Til oil were exposed for sale. The Food Inspector demanded the licence but the same was not produced. Thereafter the Food Inspector purchased 375 grams of ground-nut oil and took a sample in accordance with law. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst which was found to be not conforming the standard prescribed. After obtaining written consent of the Chief Medical Officer prosecution was launched against the applicant. Before the trial court the accused admitted everything except this that the measurement for selling ground-nut oil and the Til oil was the same and for that reason in the sample taken by the Food Inspector Til oil was also mixed. Before the trial court the prosecution examined Shri Chet Ram Paliwal (P.W.1) and Mohammed Ghani (P.W.2) to prove its case. The trial court found the applicant guilty under Sections 7/16 (1) (a) (i) (ii), Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced him to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed. 3. In the present revision, learned counsel for the applicant has moved an application for adding another ground to the following effect:- "Because the Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur, was not competent to enlarge the jurisdiction of Shri Chet Ram Paliwal or to authorise him to function in this capacity in other areas, as such the Food Inspector had no jurisdiction to take sample from the shop in dispute. The conviction of the applicant is liable to be set aside on the facts and grounds as mentioned in paras 2 to 10 aforesaid." 4. I have carefully perused the aforesaid application and the affidavit accompanying it. I have also gone through the two judgments. No such ground was raised before the two courts below. Allowing of the raising of of the new ground involves going into the question of fact on the basis of the fresh material which has been filed alongwith this application. In my opinion the applicant cannot be allowed to raise fresh ground which involves determination of question of fact also. The prayer made in the application cannot, therefore, be allowed. 5. In my opinion the applicant cannot be allowed to raise fresh ground which involves determination of question of fact also. The prayer made in the application cannot, therefore, be allowed. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the sanction granted by the Chief Medical Officer is not a legal sanction as the same has been granted mechanically. The lower appellate court has specifically dealt with the aforesaid argument and has also reproduced the order of the Chief Medical Officer. I am in complete agreement with the finding recorded by the lower appellate court that the sanction has been granted by the Chief Medical Officer after applying his mind and looking into the relevant papers. 6. The learned counsel has also urged that the applicant has been sentenced to six months R.I. and Rs. 1000/- fine which is severe and requires reduction. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the sentence awarded to the applicant does not require any reduction. 7. 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.