M.A.A. Khan, J. - (1.)In this case PW1 Qutbuddin, Food Inspector purchased on 23.6.82 at 9 A.M. at Bus Stand Niwai Distt. Tonk 660 ml. of mixed milk for Rs. 165 from the petitioner, prepared three sample three sample thereof as per rules and got one of them examined by the Public Analyst, Jaipur for proof of adulteration. The Public Analyst, vide his report dated 8.7.1982 found, on examination, milk fat contents at 2.7% and solid non-fat contents at 4.46% as against the prescribed standard of 4.5% and 8.5% respectively and reported the same to be adulterated for not its conforming to the prescribed standard. With the written consent of the authority concerned the Food Inspector filed a complaint against the petitioner in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Tonk (CJM). On trial the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (the Act) convicted him as such and sentenced him to RI for six months and fine of Rs.1000.00 vide her judgment and order dated 21.6.90. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge Tonk, by his impugned judgment and order dated 9.7.91 upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Hence this petitioner under section 397 Cr.P.C. before this court.
(2.)I have examined the correctness of the findings recorded by the courts below with reference to the evidence available on their records. The sworn testimonies of PW 1 Qutbuddin Food Inspector, and PW2 Azizaddin fully established the fact that the petitioner had sold 660 ML. mixed milk to the Food Inspector for cash consideration and the Food Inspector, observing the relevant rules in that behalf, had prepared, packed and sealed the samples and on examination of the sample milk the Public Analyst had found the same deficient in both the components namely fat contents and solids non-fat and hence adulterated. Neither of the two witnesses was inimical to the petitioner and his defence version as supported by PW1 Gajendra that the petitioner was carrying the milk to deliver the same to the ailing wife of one Itar Singh in the hospital, a version not got supported by Itar Singh or his alleged ailing wife did not demolish the sworn testimony of the two prosecution witness. The concurrent findings of fact on these points is fully supported by the evidence on record and is therefore, acceptable.
(3.)Mr. Inder Raj Saini, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that since the sanction issued under section 20 of the Act in this case was granted without the application of mind by the sanctioning authority, the very foundation of the prosecution was infirm and bad in law. Not only that I find no evidence on record of the courts below supporting Mr. Sainis contention but also that the argument has no soundness in law.