SEWAL RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated January 17, 1978 passed by the Session Judge Bijnor, dismissing his appeal and confirming his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of six years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine three month's further rigorous imprisonment was awarded. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on January 31, 1977 Brijesh Swarup Sharma, Food Inspector, Jalilpur inspected the revisionist's shop in Najira-bad and took sample of hard boiled confectionery. A portion of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who found that intermitted dyes for coloring the confectionery were used. Hence, it was held to be adulterated. The revisionist took a number of pleas but the learned lower courts negative all his contentions and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. The learned counsel for the revisionist has pressed two important points before me and in my judgment with force. In the first place the sanction accorded in this case cannot be held to be valid. The sanction is on a printed form blank columns of which were filled up by the Food Inspector. Even the columns of the sanction accorded were filled in by him. The signatures of the Chief Judicial Medical Officer exist but in entirely different ink. There is nothing on the record to show that the Chief Medical Officer of Health had applied his mind to all the facts or he had read the columns filled in by the Inspector. As held in the case of Kishan Lal v. State (1978 A.W.C. 466) blank columns of printed form of sanction should normally be filled in by Medical Officer of Health himself unless for adequate reasons it cannot be done. Where details in the form filled in are in one type of ink whereas signature of sanctioning authority are in another type of ink such circumstances create a reasonable doubt whether sanctioning authority has at all applied his mind. It is the duty of the prosecution to produce Medical Officer of Health to explain the doubts and infirmities arising therein. If it is not done the sanction cannot be held to be valid. In the instant case also the Medical Officer of Health was not examined and necessary requirements were not proved. Therefore, the sanction cannot be held to be valid and the "trial was bad for want of a valid sanction. The second point is that on the date the sample was collected Sri Brijesh Swarup Sharma was Food Inspector of Tehsil Jalilpur. Admittedly he had no concern with city of Najibabad from, where the sample was taken. According to him he was authorised by the Medical Officer of Health to take sample from that area. No such authority of the Medical Officer of Health was filed nor the Food Inspector could refer to any provision of law under which the Medical Officer of Health could authorise him to collect sample from an area of which was beyond his jurisdiction. In the case of RAM Dularey v. State (1979 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 130), Bakshi, J. has held that where sanitary Inspectors were authorised to act as Food Inspectors but their power to act as such was restricted to that particular area over which they had already exercised power as Sanitary Inspectors to suet appointment, the power to function in this capacity in other areas can be conferred only by the State Government in view of Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In the instant case the Government had appointed brijesh Swarup varma as inspector of Tehsil Jaiilpur. The Medical Officer of Health was not competent to enhance us jurisdiction or to authorise him to function in this capacity in other areas. Therefore, the Food Inspector had no jurisdiction to take sample from the shop in dispute. On this score also the revisionist's conviction is liable to be set aside. The revision application is allowed and the revisionist's conviction under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence awarded there under are set aside. He is on bail and need not surrender. The fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to him.