- (1.) VIRENDRA Saran, J. Shitla Prasad alias Mata Prasad has filed this revision against the judgment and order dated 17-2-1987 of Sri G. A. Farooqui, Special Ses sions Judge, Jaunpur dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1985 against the judg ment and order dated 15-2-1985 of the Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur convicting and sentencing the applicant under Sec tion 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adul teration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) to six months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -.
(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution a sample of buffalo milk was collected from the applicant on 30-12- 1982. The milk was sent for analysis and the public analyst reported that the milk was deficient in non- fatty solids as well as milk fat. The Courts below accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above. The applicant has now come up in revision before this Court. I have heard Sri P. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned State counsel and perused the judgment of the Courts below. An affidavit annexing a copy of the order of sanction to prosecute granted by the Chief Medical Officer, Jaunpur has been filed in this revision.
(3.) IT has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the sanction to prosecute the applicant has been ac corded without application of mind. I have carefully gone through the order of sanc tion. The sanction order is a printed pro-forma and the blanks have been filled up by some one in Hindi. Below the sanction order the Chief Medical Officer has signed in English. A perusal of the sanction order goes to show that there was no application of mind. The sanction order does not men tion the date of offence, article of food and the nature of adulteration found. In fact, except the name of the Food Inspector and the name of the applicant every thing else in the sanction order is to be found in the printed pro-forma which goes to show that the sanctioning authority acted in a most mechanical manner and did not apply its mind. There is no extraneous evidence in this case to prove that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind. That being so the prosecution of the applicant was bad for want of proper sanction order and the conviction of the applicant cannot be sus tained. The revision is allowed. The con viction and sentences passed against the applicant are set aside. The applicant is acquitted. The applicant is on bail and he need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Fine if paid by the applicant shall be refunded to the applicant by the Courts below. Revision allowed. .;