- (1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. This revision has been filed against judgment and order dated 28-7-1986 passed by Additional Ses sions Judge, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of l986.
(2.) ACCUSED Angad Singh and Bal Charan were convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In appeal, the learned Ses sions Judge set aside the conviction and sen tence passed against Bal Charan but the con viction of Angad Singh was maintained against which this revision has been filed. Ave heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that Bal Charan was owner of the s. hop and was actually carry ing on business. At the time of alleged taking of sample, Bal Charan was not present at the shop and allegedly Angad Singh was there. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that there is no sig nature of Angad Singh on the receipt and, therefore, it is not proved that alleged adul terated mustard oil was sold by the revisionist Angad Singh and further to prove this fact, public witnesses must be examined but they were not examined to prove that the accused Angad Singh son of Bal Charan was carrying on business. There fore, when the main accused Bal Charan was acquitted the conviction of Angad Singh also could not be maintained, particularly, when there is no signature of Angad Singh on the receipt. The other relevant and im portant point is sanction. The learned Ses sions Judge has held that on the sanction there was addition of the name, parentage etc. of the accused Bal Charan. It is held that the said addition was not proved to be in the hand-writing of CM. O. and, therefore, Bal , Charan was acquitted. However, if Bal Charan was acquitted on the ground that sanction was not accorded by the C. M. O for his prosecution, it becomes evident that the C. M. O. did not apply his mind and put his signature mechanically. The Food Inspec tor who proved the sanction, could not prove the initial of C. M. O. on the addition of the words. Therefore, he could not state that the C. M. O. actually went through the record. Further, if the C. M. O. would have gone through the record of this case, he must have come to know that there were two accused while in the sanction only name and parentage of one accused has been mentioned and finding the said dis crepancy, he could have dictated another order or could have directed for re-typing of sanction letter. When it is not so done, it is clear that the C. M. O. put his signature mechanically and sanction, therefore, it is not legal and, therefore, the prosecution of Angad Singh also cannot stand.
(3.) IN the result the revision is allowed. The judgment and orders of the Court below in respect of the revisionist Angad Singh are set aside. Angad Singh is ac quitted of the charge levelled against him. He is on bail and his bail bonds are can celled and sureties are discharged. Revision allowed .;