IRSHAD KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R. I. and fine of Rs. 1000.00. In default of payment of fine he is to undergo further R. I. for three months. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Rampur. Hence this revision.

(2.) have heard counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. Very briefly stated the prosecution case is that the Food Inspector took a sample of milk of shebuffalo from the applicant in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The sample when analysed by the Public Analyst disclosed that it was deficient in non-fatty solids by 8 per cent. After obtaining sanction of the prosecution the applicant has been prosecuted and sentenced as above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Chief Medical officer did not apply his mind to the facts of the case while granting sanction and as such the judgment is vitiated. The record of the case has been perused by me. In the order granting sanction it is mentioned that the relevant papers have been seen. Further, in the statement of the Food Inspector also there is a reference that the relevant papers were seen by the Chief Medical Officer, while granting sanction. In this state of evidence it is not possible to hold that the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind to the facts of the case while granting sanction and as such sanction was illegally given. In my opinion, the requirements of law were complied with and sanction was granted for prosecution of the applicant after a consideration of the relevant material on the record.