JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated 13th Feb. 1981 passed by Shri R.C. Gupta, II Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 1980 by which the conviction of the revisionist u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was maintained and the appeal was dismissed. 2. It appears that the Appellant was found selling she buffalo milk on 1st Sept. 1978 at about 7 A. M. near Ice Factory situate in the town of Powayan on Powayan-Khutar road. The Food Inspector after service of form VI (ex. Ka-1) purchased 660 ml. of milk from her after paying Rs. 1.30 as its price in the presence of one Raja Ram and Sant Ram. The notice Ex. Ka-1 is duly marked by the Food Inspector and the witness and revisionist and payment of the price has been evidenced by receipt Ex. Ka-2 thumb marked by revisionist. The sample was divided into three parts after taking the necessary precautions and adding 18 drops of formalin (preservative) and after sealing one sample was sent to the public analyst for examination on 8-9-78; the remaining bottles were deposited with the Chief Medical Officer concerned. The Public Analyst submitted his report No. 2164 on 20-10-78 by which it was found that the sample had milk fat 5.2% and the non fatty solids 6%. Thus there was a deficiency of 13% in milk fat and 26% in non fatty solids. According to his report this sample was found adulterated. 3. On receipt of this report the Food Inspector wrote to the Chief Medical Officer on 4-11-78. A copy of the report was sent by registered post to the revisionist on 9-11-78 along with the letter Ex. Ka-12 that she could get the sample analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory after making an application to the court concerned within a period of 10 day's from the date of the receipt of the copy of the report. Postal receipt Ex. Ka-11 showing the despatch of this letter through registered post is also on record. The sanction was accorded by the Chief Medical Officer on 6--11-78 and the revisionist was sent up to stand her trial. 4. Shri G.S. Nema, Munsif Magistrate tried the case summarily vide Section 16A of the aforesaid Act. The Food Inspector examined himself and proved all the documents aforesaid. 5. The sanction was accorded by the Chief Medical Officer on 6--11-78 and the revisionist was sent up to stand her trial. 4. Shri G.S. Nema, Munsif Magistrate tried the case summarily vide Section 16A of the aforesaid Act. The Food Inspector examined himself and proved all the documents aforesaid. 5. The revisionist in her statement denied the sampling. She further maintained that the milk was not meant for sale, her thumb impression only was procured while the milk was meant for the consumption of the patient. The learned Munsif Magistrate recorded the conviction of the revisionist and sentenced her to 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000-, the appeal preferred by the revisionist failed. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The first contention put forward on behalf of the revisionist before me was about the non-compliance of Section 13(2) of the aforesaid Act which makes it obligatory that a copy of the report along with the intimation has to be sent to the accused within 10 days' from the date of receipt of the copy of the report, that it was open to the accused to get the sample of the article analysed by the Director Central Food Laboratory. Since this mandatory provision has not been complied with so the proceedings are vitiated. There is no dispute on the point that the compliance of this rule has to be proved by prosecution. In the instant case the report of the public analyst was sent to revisionist on 9-11-78; this report was received in the office of the Chief Medical Officer on 11-11-78; the statement of the Food Inspector on this point found-material corroboration from Ex. Ka-11 and Ka-12. As discussed above, the revisionist did not avail her right to get the sample examined by Director, Central Food Laboratory and so the conviction does not suffer on account of any infirmity on this score. 7. The next contention was about the sanction accorded by the Chief Medical Officer concerned. 8. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist was that the sanctioning authority has not been examined in this case to prove the papers perused by him. Before according the requisite sanction, he did not apply his mind to the facts of the case while according the sanction and so the conviction is not sustainable vide Roshan Lal Vs. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist was that the sanctioning authority has not been examined in this case to prove the papers perused by him. Before according the requisite sanction, he did not apply his mind to the facts of the case while according the sanction and so the conviction is not sustainable vide Roshan Lal Vs. State, (1980) ACR 165 . A perusal of the facts of that case shall go to show that there was no detail of the papers which were perused by the sanctioning authority while according the requisite sanction. In the instant case all these papers have been specified by Shri R.C. Gupta Food Inspector PW 1 in his statement. These papers have been enumerated in letter dated 1st December 1978 vide Ex. Ka-7. The sanctioning authority himself filled all the columns while according the sanction for prosecution vide Ex. Ka-8. There is nothing on the face of this document which shows that the sanctioning authority had not perused those papers and had accorded the sanction simply as an automaton. The statement of the Food Inspector is, there, to prove the sanction which has been duly exhibited also. In these circumstances this contention is also ruled out. 9. The testimony of the Food Inspector itself was sufficient to sustain the conviction of the revisionist and so her conviction has to be maintained. Lastly, there was a prayer to extend the benefit of Probation Act to the revisionist on the basis of Section 20AA of the aforesaid Act, as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raja Ram Mahadeo Nayak v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1981 SC 1776 . I find this case eminently fit one to extend the benefit of Probation Act to the revisionist who is a poor Harijan lady with a baby in her lap and has already under gone sentence of 3 months and 25 days and deposited the fine. 10. Let her be released on her executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- only for a period of one year to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The impugned order is modified accordingly. The bond shall be furnished by the revisionist within one month of the receipt of the record in the court below. Revision is partly allowed. Revision partly allowed.