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' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he was awarded six months' further R.I. His conviction and sentence were maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge Gyanpur, Varanasi. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. I have also examined the record of the case. The applicant was found selling mustard oil on 16th November, 1978 at 2 P.M., a sample of which was taken by the Food Inspector in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Law. On analysis the sample was found to be adulterated, inasmuch as it was mixed with linseed oil to the extent of 36%. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case have held the guilt of the accused established beyond all reasonable doubt. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the subordinate courts to warrant interference in revision. 3. The applicant's counsel has submitted that in the instant case the sanction is defective. The sanctioning authority did not apply his mind while appending his signatures on the sanction. I have examined this submission very carefully and have also perused the relevant document and the statement of the Food Inspector, in this connection. The Food Inspector has specifically stated in cross-examination that he had gone to Varanasi for the purpose of obtaining sanction and that the sanctioning authority had appended his signatures to these documents, on a consideration of the proof. I find that most of these relevant documents have been signed by the sanctioning authority whose signatures have been proved by the Food Inspector. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the Chief Medical Officer has not taken relevant documents into consideration and has failed to apply his mind. In my opinion, the sanction has been validly given by the C.M.O. and I do not find any legal defect there in. 4. Counsel for the applicant wants to raise a point that the Food Inspector who had taken the sample was not authorised to take the same. In my opinion, the sanction has been validly given by the C.M.O. and I do not find any legal defect there in. 4. Counsel for the applicant wants to raise a point that the Food Inspector who had taken the sample was not authorised to take the same. It is now too late in the day to raise this question. If the applicant had any such objection he should have raised the point before the trial court where the matter could be properly investigated. Revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised for investigation of facts. As such, I do not find any merit in this contention. 5. The revision is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody fourth with to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentences of imprisonment. The interim order passed by this Court on 9-3-1981 is hereby vacated.