JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - The revisionist Israr Elahi has been convicted under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default further R.I. for six months. 2. The prosecution case was that the revisionist was found displaying for sale orange coloured lemon drops in his shop in Muradganj Bazar, Etawah at 11-00 A.M. on 25-10-1977 and a sample of the said drops taken by the food inspector was found to contain prohibited coaltar dye orange II. The storage of lemon drops for sale, the taking of sample and the fact that the sample proved adulterated are concluded by the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. 3. In revision the learned counsel has urged three legal points. The first point is that the charge was defective and gave insufficient notice of the offence to the revisionist. The record shows that the charge gave full particulars of the sample taking and mentioned that according to the Public Analyst's report dated 7-2-78 the lemon drop sample had been found coloured by a prohibited coaltar dye which made the revisionist guilty under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This is, in my opinion, adequate notice of full details of the offence. The mere fact that the name of the prohibited coallar dye (Orange 11) was not directly mentioned in the charge (indirectly it is found because the particulars of the Public Analyst's report are given) or that R.I. 28 which enumerates permissible coaltar dye or R.I. 23 which bars any colouring matter other than permitted by the rules have not been specified cannot make the charge defective. These omissions can by no stretch cause any misapprehension in the mind of the accused or prejudice his defence by misleading him in the slightest degree as to the accusation he was to answer. I would, therefore, hold that there was no defect in the charge. In this connection Section 464 Cr. P.C. is also relevant. Even the absence of a charge cannot vitiate a conviction unless a failure of justice has been occasioned thereby. There is no question of this in the present case. 4. The next point urged was that the sanction was defective. The record shows that Ex. In this connection Section 464 Cr. P.C. is also relevant. Even the absence of a charge cannot vitiate a conviction unless a failure of justice has been occasioned thereby. There is no question of this in the present case. 4. The next point urged was that the sanction was defective. The record shows that Ex. Ka 5 is the report by the Food Inspector to the sanctioning authority in which full particulars of the sample taking as well as of the Public Analyst's report are detailed. Thereafter we have the sanction Ex. Ka 6 on a cyclostyled form saying that he had examined all the papers regarding sample No. 56 C.F. 1/77 and sanctioned the prosecution of the revisionist under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Sri Sharma, Food Inspector instituting the case. It is noticeable that the sample number is not found in the Food Inspector's report Ex. Ka 5 but only in the receipt Ex. Ka 2 and the form 7 Ex. 3. This bears out that the sanctioning authority (C.M.O.) did examine these papers. The mere fact that someone else may have filled the blanks in the cyclostyled form whereas the sanctioning authority merely signed the sanction order cannot in any way render the sanction defective. 5. The last and the main point urged was that compliance of Section 13(2) and R.I. 9A had not been proved and therefore, the conviction was vitiated. Reliance has been placed on Chhatrapal v. State, 1980 (II) FAC 8 which lays down that Section 13(2) is mandatory. It is not necessary in this case to go into the question whether Section 13(2) and R.I. 9(A) are mandatory or directory because on facts, I am satisfied that the compliance of these provisions has been proved. The Food Inspector in his evidence stated that after he had instituted Ex. Ka 7 office of the Chief Medical Officer sent a copy of the Public Analyst's report for information and necessary action. There was no cross-examination whatever of this evidence. On the other hand when the accused was asked during his statement about the Public Analyst's report and that a copy of the Public Analyst's report had been given to him, the revisionist's reply was that he had no knowledge of this nor has such knowledge even now (MUJHE ISKA GYAN NAHIN THA NA HAI). On the other hand when the accused was asked during his statement about the Public Analyst's report and that a copy of the Public Analyst's report had been given to him, the revisionist's reply was that he had no knowledge of this nor has such knowledge even now (MUJHE ISKA GYAN NAHIN THA NA HAI). The unrebutted and unchallenged evidence of the Food Inspector coupled with this reply to the question that a copy had been supplied to him in my opinion suffice for inferring that the local health authority had complied with the provisions of Section 13(2) in the present case and concur with the finding of the lower appellate court to this effect. Official acts may be presumed to have been done regularly and in the absence of any challenge or even clear cut allegation that the local health authority had not complied with Section 13(2) or about any particular deficiency in compliance, I do not think it lies in the mouth of the accused to challenge the Food Inspector's somewhat general statement about compliance on the ground that full details of despatch of the copy of Public Analyst's report and an intimation had not been given by him. 6. No other point was argued. 7. The revision, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The revisionist is on bail in pursuance of this Court's order dated 14-7-80 and shall be got arrested forthwith to serve out his sentence according to law. Stay order against realisation of fine is also discharged.