JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 month's R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur. Hence this revision. 2. I have carefully perused the impugned orders. According to the prosecution case, the Food Inspector purchased a sample of buffalo milk from the applicant at about 9 A.M. on 1st April, 1975, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that it was deficient in non-fatty solids to the extent of 26 per cent. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case have held the guilt of the accused fully established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by them. 4. It appears that the order of sanction was challenged before the court below. That question has been dealt with in the impugned order wherein it has been mentioned that the circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the sanctioning authority has applied his mind fully before granting sanction. There is no illegality in his finding. 5. So far as the compliance of the provisions of R.I. 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is concerned, that too had been complied with as rightly held by the Sessions Judge. 6. There is no merit is this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment. The order staying realisation offing dated 8th April, 1980 is vacated.