KEDAR NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner a grocer was charged and tried for offence for having sold insect damaged Dhania punishable under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of which he was found guilty by the trial Court. His conviction and sentence has been affirmed on appeal. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) I must at the outset note, that I am not conversant with the Assamese language in which the whole evidence has been recorded, but for the purpose of this Revision petition, in view of the only point as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not necessary to go into evidence, nor its reappraisal is ordinarily permissible at this revisional stage, I am confining myself to the report dated 14.7.86 as submitted by the public Analyst Exp-12 which says-

(3.) Learned counsel contended that the sanction for prosecution was vitiated in as much as, the report dated 24.10.86 of Central Food Laboratory which is materially at variance with the public Analyst's report was not made available, nor could it be considered while according sanction for prosecution on 2,8.86 vide Ext. 14 It was urged that it could have been placed before the sanctioning authority and fresh sanction before launching prosecution should have been applied for and obtained. The order dated 2.8.86 according sanction for prosecution has taken in to account all relevent facts and report submitted by the Public Analayst. Considering the same the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Dibrugharh District, who has been vested with the authority vide Govt. Notification No. HLA/327/ 74/94 dated 2.2.79 accorded sanction to institute Prosecution against the petitioner.