JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant was 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, Bareilly. Hence this,revision. 2. This case was adjourned and passed over more than 16 times and was directed to be listed part heard pre-emptory today. In these circumstances, I have taken up this revision. 3. According to the prosecution case a sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the accused-applicant in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials which was sent for analysis disclosed that it was adulterated being deficient in fat contents by 25 per cent. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 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 accused fully established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court to warrant interference in revision. 4. On the last occasion it was argued by the applicants counsel that there was no compliance of section 13(2) of the P.F. Act. On 5th March, 1981, I had granted an opportunity to the counsel to file an affidavit of the counsel concerned that he argued this point before the Sessions Judge. From a perusal of the impugned order of the Sessions Judge, it appears that this point was never argued before him. Inspire of sufficient time having been granted no affidavit has been filed as directed by this court. In these circumstances, I have to accept the fact that the point was not argued before the Sessions Judge, since it does not find mention in the said judgment. I have already held above the impugned orders of the court below are not in any manner vitiated in law. 5. On the question of sentence the minimum prescribed by law has been awarded, and therefore, no interference is called for. 6. There is no merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on hail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment. 5. On the question of sentence the minimum prescribed by law has been awarded, and therefore, no interference is called for. 6. There is no merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on hail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment. The interim order granted by this court on 25th March, 1980 is hereby vacated.