V. N. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision by Than Singh against the judgment and order-dated 5-8-1981 of Sri NC. Jam, X Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, in Criminal Appeal No. 289 of 1980 confirming the conviction and the sentence of the applicant imposed by Judicial Magistrate City If, Agra, under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. ( 2 ) AT the time when this revision came up for hearing the learned counsel for the applicant did not appear and I did not have the pleasure of hearing him. Since; however, the cause list had been revised I heard the learned Assistant Government Advocate and perused the record to decide this revision on merits. ( 3 ) BEFORE the learned Additional Sessions Judge it was urged that the statement of the Food Inspector was not correctly recorded and an opportunity had not been allowed to the applicant to produce his defence. There is, however, nothing to indicate that the statement of the Food Inspector was not correctly recorded and the applicant himself expressed his inability to produce his defence. ( 4 ) THEN it was said that the Food Inspector was the only witness before the trial court, but the Food Inspector had explained that he could not take other witnesses because nearby shop-keepers refused to sign the documents as witnesses. ( 5 ) THEN it was urged that the sanction given by the Chief Medical Officer was not proper, but merely because the sanction was on a typed form or because it had been filled up by the office and was then signed by the Chief Medical Officer, it could not he said that there was no application of mind by him and the sanction given by the Chief Medical Officer was not shown, in any way to be invalid. ( 6 ) IT was also urged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the charge framed under Section 7 was defective; but on the same day when the charge was framed the applicant was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the deficiency in milk was put to him, he was, therefore, not prejudiced in any way. ( 7 ) FINALLY it was urged that Rule 9 (j) of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not complied with. But this rule could not be complied with because this was deleted by means of a notification in 1977 and was no more operative at the time when this case was heard. ( 8 ) FOR these reasons, therefore, none of the points raised in revision prevail, the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is maintained - and this revision must be dismissed. ( 9 ) THE revision, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail and shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence already imposed on him. Stay order dated 11-8-1981 passed by this Court is hereby vacated. Revision dismissed. .