JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo 3 months R.I. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Meerut. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. 3. According to the prosecution case, the Food Inspector purchased a sample of buffalo milk from the applicant at 9 A.M. on 30th December. 76. In accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, the sample was divided in three parts, and one phial has been sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, whose report disclosed that it was deficient in fat contents by 28 per cent and in non-fatty solids by 16 per cent. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 4. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on record, and the circumstances of the case have held the guilt of the accused established. 5. Counsel for the applicant has assailed the sanction recorded by the Chief Medical Officer on the ground that there is no date given under his signature in the order of sanction and also on the other relevant papers which he had signed. The Food Inspector had deposed clearly that all the relevant documents including the report of the Public Analyst were sent to the Chief Medical Officer for according sanction. The order of sanction also indicates that he has perused these papers. The Food Inspector had also deposed likewise. Each of the documents have been signed by the Chief Medical Officer, as such the mere omission to give the date underneath the signature will not be sufficient ground for holding that the Chief Medical Officer did not apply his mind to the facts of the case before granting sanction. 6. Learned counsel has also submitted that there has been violation of Section 10(7) of the Food Adulteration Act. This point has been considered by the courts below and I am in agreement with the Sessions Judge that there was no such violation. The sample was taken in the presence of four persons one of whom Babu had also entered the witness box. This point has been considered by the courts below and I am in agreement with the Sessions Judge that there was no such violation. The sample was taken in the presence of four persons one of whom Babu had also entered the witness box. Chiranji Lal as found by the courts below is an independent witness. Thus there has been sufficient compliance of law in this connection. 7. So for as the sentence is concerned, the minimum prescribed under law has been awarded to the applicant. Thus there is no ground for interference. 8. There is no merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The interim order dated 16-4-80 passed by this Hon'ble Court is hereby vacated.