BHAGELOO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist at length and the learned AGA.

(2.) PERUSED the impugned judgment and order passed in criminal appeal No. 65 of 1981 by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaunpur dated 28-7-1983. Also perused the trial court judgment and other materials on record the revisionist has been convicted under Section 7/16pfaact and has been awarded sentence of six months RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default one month SI.

(3.) THE observations made by the courts below on the point of sanc tion are very satisfactory. THE argument of the learned counsel that the details of the papers perused by the sanctioning authority should be noted in the sanction order is not disclosed by the discussions in the impugned judgment, but it is noted that the Food Inspector had sent his report along-with other papers and sanction was granted after studying all those papers. So the application of mind by sanctioning authority is clear that he is studied all papers which were sent by the Food Inspector along with his report. So there is no force in the argument on this count. So far the third point is concerned there is practically no delay in the case. THE sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst only next day of the taking of the sample and the prosecution was also launched only 9 months later after observing all formalities. THE report of the Public Analyst dated 7-2-1977 cannot be said delayed well within 90 days of the taking of the sample report was submitted. Thus this argument has no force.