JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant. Very briefly stated the facts of the case are that a sample of Saunf was purchased by the Food Inspector on 13th October, 1977 from the shop of the applicant in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. On analysis the sample was found to contain 15.4 per cent inorganic extraneous matter 6.7 per cent organic extraneous matter and 13.2 per cent insect damaged Saunf which exceeded the maximum permissible limit of 5 per cent as provided in appendix A.05.11. On these allegations, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case have held the guilt of the applicant fully established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate courts to warrant interference in revision. 4. The applicant's counsel, however, has submitted that Saunf is primary food and as such he would be entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 16. This contention cannot be accepted because the presence of insects beyond the permissible limit makes the article of food injurious to health. In these circumstances the said proviso would be inapplicable. 5. Learned counsel has also challenged the sanction granted by the C.M.O. I am not impressed with his argument. In my opinion the sanction has been granted in accordance with law, after perusing the relevant documents. 6. A point has also been raised with respect to section 13(2) of the P.F. Act but there also I do not find any substance because a copy of the report of the Public Analyst along with the intimation Ex. Ka 10 was sent to the applicant on 23rd August, 78 as required under section 13(2) of the P.F. Act. 7. For the reasons given above, there is no merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail, he shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment.