JAI SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted under Section 7 (i) and Section 7 (iii) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each count. His conviction has been maintained in appeal but the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him has been reduced to 3 months' R. I. and fine to Rs. 500/- on each count. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo 2 months' R. I. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently, hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has said that since the order granting sanction is a typed document, and the Sanctioning Authority has merely appended his signature thereon, it should be taken that the Medical Officer of Health has not applied his mind before granting sanction. I do not agree with this submission. No particular form of sanction has been prescribed. It is not an unusual feature for a senior officer to dictate an order and for the clerk to type out and to place it before him for his signature. This appears to have been done in the instant case. I am satisfied that the sanction granted by the Medical Officer of Health, Saharanpur was a valid sanction in accordance: with law and not a mechanical one.