JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - The revisionist has been convicted under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to R.I. for one year and Rs. 2,000/- fine, in default further R.I. for three months. 2. The prosecution case was that on 13-12-75 at about 9 P.M. the Food Inspector had taken a sample of Besan Laddu prepared in vegetable oil from the revisionists shop at Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur and on analysis by the public analyst vide his report dated 24-1-76 this sample was found adulterated because it contained a prohibited coaltar dye viz. mentanil yellow. The revisionists case was of denial that he was selling away Besan Laddu or that any sample was taken from him. He alleged that his thumb impression had been obtained by the Food Inspector. This defence has been rejected by the courts below and this finding of fact based on cogent material has no infirmity that can be taken notice of at this stage. 3. The learned counsel reiterated the two pleas raised before the appellate court. Firstly, the sanction (Ext. Ka-8) was attacked. This sanction on a printed form with the blanks filled in does not show any defect. The mere fact that the blanks have been filled in by some other handwriting and the Chief Medical Officer apparently has only signed the sanction order with a different ink cannot justify the inference that there was no application of mind. Moreover, the Food Inspector has deposed in his evidence that the necessary papers were placed before the C.M.O. and then he had accorded this sanction. The contention has, therefore, no substance. 4. The other point was that there had been no compliance of Rule 9(j), The Food Inspectors evidence and Ext. Ka-6 (registration receipt) taken together prove that a copy of the public analysts report had been sent to the revisionist by registered post. The date in this receipt is indistinct but seems to be 27th February, 1976. This is substantial compliance with the provisions of Rule 9(j) and the revisionist who never applied analysis by the Director, Central Food Laboratory cannot in this situation complain that his right under section 13(2) had been prejudiced. The conviction must, therefore, stand, Considering that the occurrence is quite old I would reduce the sentence to the minimum prescribed by law. 5. The revision is partly allowed. The conviction must, therefore, stand, Considering that the occurrence is quite old I would reduce the sentence to the minimum prescribed by law. 5. The revision is partly allowed. The conviction under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is confirmed but the sentence is reduced ' from one year R I. and Rs. 7,000/- fine to six months R.I. and Rs. 1,000/-fine, in default further R.I. for two months. The revisionist is on bail in pursuance of this Courts order dated 4-10-80 and shall be got arrested immediately to serve out his sentence according to law.