ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirmour at Nahan dated Ist June, 1993. Respondent, after having been found guilty under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default of payment whereof he was required to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Against this judgment respondent preferred an appeal which came up before the appellate Court below and by means of impugned judgment, respondent has been acquitted, hence this appeal at the instance of the State.
(2.)IN order to properly appreciate the respective submissions urged on behalf of the parties, brief facts need to be noticed. On 4.4.1986 at about 10.00 A.M., G.R. Puri (PW.1), Food Inspector of Sirmour District accompanied by Medical Officer, Dr. Subhash Thakur, visited Dhaula Kuan near Paonta Sahib. Respondent was running his Dhaba there. After disclosing his identity as well as intention to draw sample out of the curd lying in the Kunda (an earthen pot having wide mouth for curdling milk) which was full of curd, the Food Inspector purchased 750 gms. of curd and after observing codal formalities and adding preservative, one sample of curd was sent for analysis, as required under law, to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh, who opined that the contents of sample were deficient in milk fat by 40% and in milk -solid not fat by 41% of the minimum prescribed standard.
(3.)RECORD shows that after receipt of report of the Public Analyst by the Local Health Authority, it was sent to the Food Inspector who applied for grant of sanction as required under law. PW.3 Dr. N.P. Aggarwal, Chief Medical Officer, District Sirmour at Nahan accorded sanction vide Ex. P.12 authorising the Food Inspector (PW.1) to launch prosecution against the respondent, when the prosecution was, in fact, launched by him before the Court below.
Intimation regarding launching prosecution along with copy of report of the Public Analyst was sent by registered post to the respondent, but it was received back un -delivered since the respondent was not available at the given address. In order to prove Ex. P.12, Dr. N.P. Aggarwal (PW.3) was examined by the prosecution. On examination of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it cannot be said that it calls for no interference in this appeal against acquittal filed by the State, as would be evident from the discussion hereinafter.