(1.) This revision was filed against the order upholding the applicant's conviction under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the lower appellate Court.
(2.) In the present case on 4-4-1976 the Food Inspector had taken sample of mustard oil from the shop of the applicant. After completing all the necessary formalities as required under the law, one of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst reported that the sample contained 7.9% tisi oil. Therefore, in his opinion, it was an admixture of two oils which is prohibited under Rule 44(e). A complaint was filed after procuring consent from C.M.O., Azamgarh.
(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no compliance of S.13 (2) of P.F.A. Act as amended in 1976. It is further contended that the sanction order does not show any application of mind by the sanctioning authority. There is nothing on record to show that all the necessary papers were perused as required under S.20 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (here-inafter referred to as PFA act).