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/-. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Etawah. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. According to the prosecution case sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector on 15th September, 1974, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials which was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst disclosed that it was deficient in fat contents by 50 per cent and in non-fatty solids by 42 per cent. After obtaining sanction the applicant was prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on the record and circumstances of the case have held the guilt of the accused fully established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding of fact so recorded by the subordinate courts to warrant interference in revision. 4. Counsel for the applicant has argued that since the accused had not given out the nature of the milk which he was carrying, therefore, the Public Analyst has committed an error of law in judging it from the buffalo milk standard. In my opinion, there is no merit in this contention. The note which is attached to appendix B of Food Adulteration Rules, clearly indicates that when the sample of milk, offered for sale, does not specify or disclose the class to which it belonged the standard prescribed for buffalo milk shall be applicable. That appears to be the correct legal position. I have also held so in a case reported in 1980(1) F.A.C. 210 , Shyam Bahadur v. State. There is thus no merit in this contention. 5. However, the plea that was taken by the applicant was that he was carrying this milk for his ailing sister. This plea, has been repelled by the courts below and therefore, can not he held sustainable. 6. It is also argued that the sanction in the instant case was defective inasmuch as the C.M.O. had not applied his mind to the merits of the case. This plea, has been repelled by the courts below and therefore, can not he held sustainable. 6. It is also argued that the sanction in the instant case was defective inasmuch as the C.M.O. had not applied his mind to the merits of the case. This submission also appears to be without force because it appears from a perusal of the record that the sanction itself has been filled up by the C.M.O. in his own hand-writing and the C.M.O. endorsed the order granting sanction. In my opinion the C.M.O. has applied his mind to the fact of the case and the sanction is not legally vitiated. 7. On the question of sentence, I am not inclined to give relief to the applicant for the simple reason that the adulteration in the milk is very heavy. The sample was deficient in fat contents to the extent of 50 per cent and in non-fatty solids by 42 per cent. Thus no relief can be granted to the applicant. 8. Thus, this revision fails and 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. The interim order passed on 21th March, 80 is hereby vacated.