BHAIRO SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is convicted under section 16(1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (hereinafter referred as to 'Act'). It is alleged that Food Inspector Raj Kumar Verma took sample of milk on 22.3.1991 in village Shamshabad, Distt. Vidisha at about 8. a.m. The sample was sent for analysis to Public Analyst and in the report the milk was found adulterated, therefore, permission for prosecution was granted by Deputy Director Food and Drugs Administration District Vidisha vide Ex. P -14. Trial Court convicted appellant and sentenced him for 6 months RI and fine of Rs. 1,000/ - was imposed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for appellant submitted that prosecution itself was incompetent. He submitted that sanction to prosecution under section 20 of the Act was not granted by the competent authority. He further submitted that sanction Ex. P -14 is without application of mind. Sanction Ex. P -14 was not proved properly. None of the witnesses has proved the signatures of the authority on this letter of sanction, therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the sanction under section 20 of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that provisions of section 20 of the Act are mandatory. He further submitted that complainant is also a prosecutor and applicant cannot be convicted on his sole testimony. The testimony of the complainant/prosecutor must be corroborated before conviction.

(3.) EVEN otherwise, no reliance can be placed upon Ex. P -14. The contents of this document were not proved. None of the witnesses has stated that this document bears the signatures of Deputy Director. The witness who has exhibited Ex. P -14 bears signatures of Dr. Smt. H. Kaur Sinha and Ex. P -14 bears her signatures. Dr. Smt. H. Kaur Sinha has not been examined as a witness.