BUDHOO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the P. F. Act and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - by the trial court. In appeal his conviction was maintained and also the sentence of fine. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order. I have also closely examined the record of the case. A sample of milk is alleged to have been purchased from the applicant on 23. 12. 1971 at 9 a. m by the Food Inspector, which, on analysis, was found to be adulterated. After obtaining sanction the applicant was prosecuted. It appears that the prosecu tion failed and the accused was dis charged because of a defective sanction. Thereafter a fresh complaint was filed on 15th November 1974 after obtaining the requisite sanction. On this basis the applicant has been prosecuted and con victed as above.

(3.) THE applicants counsel has submitted that the sanction accorded in the instant case is no sanction in the eyes of law. There is nothing on the record to indi cate that the sanctioning authority has applied his mind to the facts of the case before according his consent. In this connection, it will be pertinent to refer to the order granting sanction (Ext. Ka -6 dated 6. 12. 1974) which runs as fol lows : -