JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th November, 1980, passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant by the trial court for the offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The facts giving rise to this application can briefly be stated as under : On 2nd of May, 1977 at about 8 A.M. the Food Inspector, Brindaban, Mathura, took sample out of the milk in possession of the applicant. Due formalities prescribed under the law were complied with. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who reported it to be adulterated. A complaint was accordingly filed for the prosecution of the applicant under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. The applicant did not deny the taking of the sample of milk from his possession. He merely pleaded that the milk was not intended for sale and that he was carrying it in connection with a marriage. The trial court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the charge under section 7 read with section 16 was made out beyond reasonable doubt against the applicant. The applicant was accordingly convicted and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the applicant was directed to undergo 1 months further rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved against it, the applicant filed an appeal in the court of sessions which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura. The learned Sessions Judge found the appeal devoid of substance and dismissed it vide his judgment dated 17th of November, 1980. Dissatisfied with it, the applicant has filed the present revision. 4. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in the instant case is that the sanction accorded for the prosecution of the applicant is not a valid sanction as it did not contain all the necessary facts. The contention does not appear to be well founded. On a perusal of the record find that the Food Inspector submitted a report to the Chief Medical Officer, Mathura, for obtaining his sanction. That report contains all the facts of the case. The contention does not appear to be well founded. On a perusal of the record find that the Food Inspector submitted a report to the Chief Medical Officer, Mathura, for obtaining his sanction. That report contains all the facts of the case. The sanction was accorded by the Chief Medical Officer on the same paper. It should, therefore, be presumed that before according the sanction the Chief Medical Officer had perused the facts stated therein. In fact the proforma of the sanction starts with the words "papers seen". Under these circumstances the contention raised that the sanction was invalid has no substance and must be rejected. 5. Learned counsel next urged that compliance of sub-section (vii) of section 10 was not made in this case and hence the conviction recorded against the applicant stands vitiated. The argument also fails to impress me. It may be recalled that the applicant, during his examination, did not deny that the sample of milk was taken out of the milk in his possession. He merely pleaded that the milk was not intended for sale. In this context, whether any independent witness was or was not taken by the Food Inspector, as required by subsection (vii) of section 10, is not at all material. 6. It was next urged that the trial court committed an illegality in holding a summary trial for the offence charged against the applicant. The contention, however, carries no force, Section 16-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act explicitly states that all offences under sub-section (1) of section 16 shall be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate First Class specially empowered in this behalf. It will thus appear that by section 16-A it has been made compulsory that the offence under sub-section (1) of section 16 should be tried in a summary way. The contention is, therefore, rejected. 7. No other contention was raised or pressed. 8. This revision, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.