YOGENDRA NATH Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A sample of mustard oil was taken on 29th Nov., 1978 at 1 p.m. from the shop of the present applicant in village Takeramn by the Food Inspector, after observing the rules. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was adulterated. A notice under Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly the Act) was given to the applicant. At the trial, the applicant raised a number of pleas which were all repelled by the trial court. The prosecution case was accepted and the applicant was found guilty and convicted for an offence under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00. The applicant took an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Ballia. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia who heard the appeal, found no merit in it and dismissed it. Hence this revision.

(2.) The learned counsel for the applicant has made two submissions; first that the sanction accorded by the Chief Medical Officer was no sanction in the eye of law as it was granted without application of mind. Second that the notice under Sec. 13(2) of the Act was invalid as it allowed only a weeks time instead of ten days for making an application to the Magistrate concerned for getting the sample re-analysed. The learned counsel has urged that Sec. 13(2) of the Act is mandatory and, therefore, strict compliance was necessary.

(3.) After receipt of the report of the Public Analyst the Food Inspector addressed a letter Ex. Ka-4 to the Chief Medical Officer, Ballia. In this letter, he mentioned how the sample of mustard oil was taken and that the Public Analyst had found the sample adulterated. He requested (he Chief Medical Officer to accord sanction for prosecuting the applicant for an offence under sections 7/16 of the Act. In this letter the various papers relied upon and the names of witnesses were also mentioned. On this letter itself, the Chief Medical Officer accorded sanction. The letter shows that a Rubber stamp in Hindi showing words 'Sweekrit/Asweekrit' was put and the Chief Medical Officer scored out the word 'Asweekrit and affixed his signatures in token of the sanction. The question for consideration is whether this kind of sanction can be taken to be the sanction granted by the Chief Medical Officer concerned after application of his mind to all the relevant facts. The prosecution had examined only one witness namely, Ram Ashraya Singh, Food Inspector. This witness proved the signatures of the Chief Medical Officer on Ex. K-4 but did not say anything more to indicate that the Chief Medical Officer had considered the relevant documents and applied his mind before affixing his signatures under the Rubber stamped word 'Sweekrit. Thus, there is no evidence either documentary or oral on the record to indicate that the Chief Medical Officer had actually applied his mind before according the sanction. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that in the instant case sanction was granted by the Chief Medical Officer after applying his mind to the relevant material. In this connection, may refer to only one decision of this Court reported in Buddev Vs. State, 1979 All. Cr. R. 475. The principle is that the sanctioning authority should apply his mind before according the sanction and there should be satisfactory evidence on the record either documentary or oral to indicate that the sanctioning authority had, in fact, applied his mind to the facts of the case. In the instant case, the sanction cannot be taken as valid for the above-said reason and, therefore, the prosecution of the applicant is vitiated. Since the point No. 1 is sufficient to dispose of this revision, do not propose to discuss and decide the second point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and leave it open.