STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION Vs. SHYAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has a chequered history ; a sample of Laddoos, was purchased on 6th December, 1979 by the Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. That sample was found to be adulterated. After trial, the respondent was convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00 . On appeal, the case was remanded for re-trial by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi vide order dated 6th September, 1983. Thereafter, Shri V.K. Shali, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi by his judgment dated 22nd January, 1985 found the respondent guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act'). By a separate order dated 28th January, 1985, two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 was imposed on the respondent. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The appeal against the orders of conviction and sentence was allowed by Shri K.B. Andley, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi by his order or 31st July, 1985 on the short ground that sanction to prosecute was not valid. The present appeal by way of special leave is directed against the said order.

(2.) The sanction to prosecute accorded by the Secretary (Medical), Delhi Administration is Ex. Public Witness 1/B. We find that the sanction granted is in a cyclostyled form wherein the name of the accused has been typed in the body of the form ; the food article as well as the date of the lifting of the sample has also been typed.

(3.) Mr. Lao, learned counsel for the appellant agrees that the sanctioning Authority ought to have atleast quoted the provision of the Act for which offence, the sanction to prosecute was being granted by him. We also find that in Ex. Public Witness . 1/B, there is no specific reference by the authority concerned to the report of the public analyst at all. It seems that the sanction which was granted on 11th April, 1980 was prior to the decision of this Court holding that such sanction was not proper. Mr. Lao submits that at present these forms are not being utilised by the sanctioning authority. The learned appellate Court while allowing the appeal has followed a case reported in 1985 FAJ 72 entitled State (Delhi Admn.) v. Brij Mohan (Crl. Revision No. 166/84, decided on 21st December, 1984) wherein J.D. Jain, J, held that a sanction like the present was not a proper sanction.