JUDGMENT S.J. Hyder, J. -The list has been revised. waited for sufficiently long time but no one has appeared in support of this revision. 2. The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act hereinafter referred to as the Act. He was sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. fora further period of three months. 3. Shortly stated the prosecution case was that on July 2, 1979 the applicant was found selling amongst other articles Haldi, Mirch, Dhania other spicies and tea, under the law he was under an obligation to obtain a licence for selling the aforesaid articles, but he did not obtain the same from the appropriate authorities. The Trial Magistrate found that the case was fully established and recorded an order of conviction and sentence as stated above. The Sessions Judge on appeal has maintained the said order. 4. In the grounds of Revision it is stated that no case punishable under Sections 7/16 of the Act was established against the applicant. This ground is legally unsustainable as Haldi, Mirch, Dhania etc. could only be sold after obtaining a licence. It has been adequately established by the evidence that the applicant had not obtained any such licence. In fact it was not urged either before the trial Magistrate or before the court of appeal that the applicant had made any application for obtaining the licence. 5. The next ground is that the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind before recording the sanction. This ground is also not borne out from the record. The sanction is granted in accordance with law and after application of mind. This is also a finding of the two courts below. Nothing has come to my notice on the basis of which may take a contrary view. 6. It is finally stated in the memo of revision that the sentence awarded to the applicant is too severe. am not prepared to accede to that contention. The sentence awarded to the applicant is the minimum prescribed under the law. Lesser sentence could not have been awarded to him. 7. The net result is that there is no merit in this revision, which must be dismissed. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed. am not prepared to accede to that contention. The sentence awarded to the applicant is the minimum prescribed under the law. Lesser sentence could not have been awarded to him. 7. The net result is that there is no merit in this revision, which must be dismissed. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him.