JUDGMENT G.K. Mathur, J. - The revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.12.1981 passed by the Sessions Judge, Philibhit in Criminal Appeal No.55 of 1981 by which the conviction of the applicant has been maintained. 2. The applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of Prevention of I Food Adulteration Act by the order dated 28.4.1981 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Philibhit and has been sentenced to R.l. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.l. for three months. 3. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the applicant. I have perused the record, one of the grounds taken in the revision is that the thumb impression of the revisionist had been obtained by the Food Inspector forcibly and that the compliance of Rule 9(1) was not made. The other ground taken is that the revisionist was selling mixed milk of cow and buffallo and the standard of buffallo milk has wrongly been applied against him. 4. The learned Trial Court as well as the appellate court discussed all these points in detail and there is concurrent finding to the effect that the revisionist was selling buffallo milk at his dairy and the sample taken by the Food Inspector was found adulterated. The statement of D.W. 1 Mohd.Hanif was to the effect that no sample had been taken from the revisionist. The aforesaid statement of Mohd. Hanif is not consistent with the statement of the revisionist recorded under section 313, Criminal P.C. The Courts below have rightly over-ruled the contention of the revisionist that his thumb impression had been obtained forcibly by the Food Inspector on Ext.-ka-l and 2. The compliance of the relevant rules has been made in this case quite alright. I see no illegality in the impugned order, The revision is dismissed. 5. The revisionist is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken I into custody to serve out the sentence.