JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated 24.8.1984 dismissing the appeal and maintaining the order of conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. There are no merits in the present revision and the same is accordingly dismissed. 3. After the aforesaid judgment was dictated but before it could be signed, the learned Counsel for the applicant requested that he wants to urge some more points and he was permitted to urge. The first point urged by him was that the Food Analyst did not specify the class of milk as to whether it was cow milk, or buffalo milk. The second point urged was that the sanction for prosecution was not obtained after applying the mind, and the next point was that there was no compliance of section 13(2) of the Act. 4. As regards the first point, both the Courts below have hold that the milk was found to be adulterated. It appears that by over sight the nature of milk was not specified, but under the Act either it may be cow milk or buffaloo milk or mixed milk. It was for the applicant to challenge that this was not the milk of the category specified in the report of Public Analyst. But since the applicant failed to do so, I accepted the findings of the courts below that the milk was found to be adulterated. As regards the second point that the sanction was not obtained under section 20 of the Act, detailed reasons are not required before granting sanction for prosecution. Section 20 provides only that without written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or the person authorised in this behalf the prosecution cannot be instituted. In the instant case it appears that the learned Magistrate was conscious and the said point was urged there and it has been held in para 2 that after the report of Public Analyst was received, details were prepared and the same were produced before the Chief Medical Officer, who after perusing the entire papers, has granted the sanction. I am accordingly satisfied that there was no mistake in granting sanction. I am accordingly satisfied that there was no mistake in granting sanction. As regards the third point, i.e. about the non-compliance of section 13(2) of the Act, it appears that from the side of the applicant no application was moved as required by section 13(2) of the Act, that the applicant wanted the sample to be sent analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. Unless the applicant makes that application, it cannot be said that the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act have been violated. Further the courts below have recorded a finding that the applicant was served with the report of Public Analyst but he did not make any such application to send it to be analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, 5. In the result, there are no merits in any of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicant and the order dismissing the revision is maintained. The interim stay order dated 18.9.1984 granting bail and staying realisation of fine is hereby vacated. The applicant is directed to be taken into custody forthwith. The bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. 6. Office is directed to send back the record of the case immediately and inform the Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) and the District Magistrate, Pilibhit about the result of this revision within a week.