KISHAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been prosecuted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. His conviction and sentence of imprisonment has been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Bareilly, but the fine has been reduced to Rs. 500/-. Hence this revision.

(2.) IT is not necessary to go into the detail facts of this case, since the main question argued by the applicant's counsel is that the sanction alleged to have been granted in the instant case is no sanction in the eyes of law. He submits that the sanctioning authority has not applied his mind before granting the sanction.

(3.) I also find from a perusal of the printed form of sanction dated 23rd April, 1973 (Ex. Ka. 6) that the Medical Officer of Health, while granting the sanction has authorised Sri J. N. Rawat to launch the prosecution in Court. In all fairness to the citizen, whose liberty is at stake and who is liable to serious consequences of prosecution under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the blank columns of this form granting sanction, should normally be filled in by the Medical Officer of Health himself, unless for adequate reasons it cannot be done. Such an action on his part would indicate that the Medical Officer of Health had presonally applied his mind to the facts of the case before granting the requisite sanction. If somebody else fills up these blanks, as appears to have been done in the instant case, it would give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the signatures have been mechanically affixed to the document by the sanctioning authority without the application of his mind. To neutralise any such misgiving or suspicion in the mind of the accused-applicant, I consider it very desirable that the order granting sanction on the prescribed form should be personally filled in by the sanctioning authority, otherwise such loopholes are bound to create confusion and provide ample meterial for argument on behalf of the convicted accused. It is apparent from the scrutiny of Ex. Ka 6 that the details have been filled in one type of ink, whereas the signature of the sanctioning authority are in another type of ink. This is obvious to the naked eye. This circumstance, therefore, creates a reasonable doubt whether the sanctioning authority has at all applied his mind before authorising Sri J. N. Rawat to launch the prosecution in the court against the accused-applicant.