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 fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he is to undergo further R. I. for three months. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Rampur. Hence this revision. 2. have heard counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. Very briefly stated the prosecution case is that the Food Inspector took a sample of milk of shebuffalo from the applicant in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The sample when analysed by the Public Analyst disclosed that it was deficient in non-fatty solids by 8 per cent. After obtaining sanction of the prosecution the applicant has been prosecuted and sentenced as above. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Chief Medical officer did not apply his mind to the facts of the case while granting sanction and as such the judgment is vitiated. The record of the case has been perused by me. In the order granting sanction it is mentioned that the relevant papers have been seen. Further, in the statement of the Food Inspector also there is a reference that the relevant papers were seen by the Chief Medical Officer, while granting sanction. In this state of evidence it is not possible to hold that the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind to the facts of the case while granting sanction and as such sanction was illegally given. In my opinion, the requirements of law were complied with and sanction was granted for prosecution of the applicant after a consideration of the relevant material on the record. 4. Counsel for the applicant has then argued that the accused is 75-80 years of age. Relief on the ground of age has to be refused for the reason that the offence in question had taken place on 8th October, 1978 when the amended Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was in force. As such the minimum punishment for the offence in question is six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Relief on the ground of age has to be refused for the reason that the offence in question had taken place on 8th October, 1978 when the amended Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was in force. As such the minimum punishment for the offence in question is six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. On the ground of age there is definite prohibition under section 20 A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for remitting the sentence only of those offenders who are under 18 years of age. The applicant is 75-80 years of age. There is, however, nothing in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to show that he is as old as he has now alleged. Thus have no satisfactory material on the record before me to hold that the applicant is extremely old and should be granted this indulgence. 5. Counsel for the applicant has further contended that no independent evidence has been produced. This point has been considered by the court below. Both the courts have concurrently accepted the oral" testimony which has been produced in this case. Sitting in revision cannot set aside findings of fact which have been concurrently accepted by subordinate courts. The applicant's counsel has further submitted that mere assertion of the Food Inspector that independent witnesses of the locality have refused to sign is not sufficient to wave aside the requirements of independent witnesses. In my opinion that is not the correct exposition of law. Since the Food Inspector has said that independent witnesses had refused to sign, that to my mind, is sufficient compliance of law and the burden cast upon the prosecution has been sufficiently discharged by the State. In this view of the matter, am unable to reject the findings of fact arrived at concurrently by the courts below accepting the testimony of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the incident in question. 6. The applicants counsel has also argued with regard to compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act. There does not seem to be any substance in this contention. The statement of P. W. 1. clearly indicates that the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the applicant along with the covering letter, which is Ex- Ka.-9 on the record. The applicants counsel has also argued with regard to compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act. There does not seem to be any substance in this contention. The statement of P. W. 1. clearly indicates that the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the applicant along with the covering letter, which is Ex- Ka.-9 on the record. This letter clearly indicates that if the applicant so desires, he may within ten days apply for re-analysis of the sample. Postal receipt has also been filed and duly proved. In the face of these circumstances and documentary evidence, am of the opinion that there has been full compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act. There is no merit in this contention also. 7. For the reason given above, am of the opinion that there is no merit in this revision which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is in jail. He shall continue to remain in jail to serve out the remaining portion of the sentence of imprisonment. Order staying realisation of fine dated 20, 2. 1981 is hereby vacated.