MAHADEO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by one Mahadeo. He was convicted by the Municipal Magistrate, Jodhpur of an offence Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter to be referred as the "act", and sentenced to one year's-rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. His appeal was partially allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, who maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default three months' simple imprionment.

(2.) THE accused is a dealer in food articles in the city of Jodhpur. On 23-2-1966, the Food Inspector, Shri Laxman Singh (P. W. 1) went to the shqp of the accused and took samples of "til" oil and 'sarson' (mustered) oil f on payment, for analysis. He prepared? the Memo and divided the samples in three phials as usual. One phial of each sample was given to the accused, two phials of each sample were' sent to the Public Analyst at Jaipur and the remaining phials were kept with the local' authority. The sample of 'til' oil was found to be alright by the Public Analyst, but in the sample of 'sarson' oil it was found that the , saponification value was 181. 1, when according to the prescribed standard it should have been between 168 and 175. Consequently and complaint was lodged by the Food Inspector in the court of the learned Municipal Magistrate with the result mentioned at the outset.

(3.) AT the forefront of his argument learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken' the point that the prosecution of, the accused was without proper sanction or written consent of the competent authority as the order Ex. P/5 did 'not fulfil the requirements of law may deal with that question at this point. Section 20 of the Act reads as under: "section 20. Cognizance and trial of offences: