JUDGMENT V.N. Misra, J. - This is an application in revision by Phool Chand against the judgment and order dated 2-6-81 by Sri A.S. Tripathi, IIIrd Additional Judge, Jaunpur in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1980 which was dismissed and the conviction recorded against the applicant under Sections 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was maintained. 2. Very briefly stated the facts of the case are that on JO-12-76 at about 2-30 P.M. the Food Inspector Udai Bhan Tewari went to the market of village Suraila, P.S. Karaket of district Jaunpur and took 375 grams of mustard oil from the applicant as sample. This was divided into three parts and sealed in three clean and dry bottles. One of them was sent to the Public Analyst, who found it to be adulterated. Therefore, necessary sanction of the Chief Medical Officer, Jaunpur was obtained and the applicant was prosecuted, resulting in his conviction, as aforesaid. 3. Two points were raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in ; this revision. Firstly, it was urged that the sanction given by the Chief Medical Officer for prosecution of the applicant was not proper and this sanction was ; given without any application of mind by him. The second ground urged was j that the controversy in this case, namely, that the mustard oil was adulterated j or not was not discussed at all in the judgments of the two lower courts and, therefore, these were not judgments in law and should be set aside. 4. It was contended that the sanction given in this case was in the hand of the Food Inspector and after the Food Inspector had written out the sanction the Chief Medical Officer only signed it. The record, however, shows that the order of sanction is not in the handwriting of the Food Inspector. The sanction was written out by some clerk in the office of the Chief Medical Officer and then it was taken to the Chief Medical Officer and was signed by him. If this sanction was in the handwriting of the Food Inspector perhaps, it could be believed that he wrote out the sanction in proper form and the Chief Medical Officer without applying his mind appended his signature giving his consent to the prosecution of the applicant. If this sanction was in the handwriting of the Food Inspector perhaps, it could be believed that he wrote out the sanction in proper form and the Chief Medical Officer without applying his mind appended his signature giving his consent to the prosecution of the applicant. In this case, however, the order of the Chief Medical Officer was written by a clerk in his office. The Chief Medical Officer has to deal with so many matters in his office and it cannot be supposed that the clerk who wrote out sanction was fully aware of the language in which the sanction should have been written. He then wrote it out and brought it to the Chief Medical Officer who signed it. Then it is also a matter of common knowledge that when papers are brought by any clerk to an office he naturally inquires what the papers are about and on being told what they are about, he appends his signatures on them. Therefore, even if the Chief Medical Officer did not dictate the order of sanction he was bound to have ascertained all the facts before giving his sanction and could not have signed any paper which office clerk brought to him. am aware of two decisions of this Court in which it was held that if an order of sanction is in one ink and the sanction of the Chief Medical Officer is in another ink. then it may be doubted whether the Chief Medical Officer applied his mind to the facts of the case and then gave his sanction. In this case, however, admittedly the sanction was written by a . clerk of the office and it is obvious that he could not have written it out unless ' it was dictated to him by the Chief Medical Officer. For this reason and because he must have asked what the papers were about and must have been told 1 about the adulteration, therefore, there was obviously application of mind by him before he gave his sanction. 5. The other ground that the nature of adulteration in the mustard oil was not discussed in the two lower courts judgments is also immaterial, because the point in controversy in this case was not whether the mustard oil was adulterated or not, but whether the sample was taken from the applicant or not. 5. The other ground that the nature of adulteration in the mustard oil was not discussed in the two lower courts judgments is also immaterial, because the point in controversy in this case was not whether the mustard oil was adulterated or not, but whether the sample was taken from the applicant or not. Since this was not a matter in controversy a copy of the report of the Public Analyst had been sent to the applicant, therefore, even if the details of adulteration found were not given in the two judgments, it was a matter of no consequence. None of these two points raised before me in revision, therefore, prevail and the revision must be dismissed. 6. The revision, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail to serve out his sentence. Stay order dated June 12, 1981 is hereby discharged.