P.N. Bakshi, J. - (1.) THESE are two connected revisions. Cr. Rev.no. 1423 of 1979 has been filed by Ram Bahadur, while Cr. Rev. no. 1364 of 1979 has been filed by Machhan Khan. Both these revisions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) APPLICANT Ram Bahadur was convicted and sentenced to 6 months' R. I, and a fine of Rs 1000/- under Sac. 16 (1) (a) (i), of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, while Machhan Khan was convicted and sentenced to 6 months' R. I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Sec. 7 (1)/16 (l)(a) (i) and to 3. months' R. 1. and a fine of Rs. 500/-under Sec. 7 (iii) read with Sec. 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Their conviction and sentences were maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge Rampur vide his order dated 10th August, 79. Hence these connected revisions. According to the prosecution case, the Food-Inspector saw the applicant Machhan Khan carrying milk in a drum near the octroi post of Milak, District Rampur at about 8 A. M. on 16th April, 1977. He purchased 7.50 M. Grams of milk from him, divided it into three parts, and poured each part in an empty small bottle. The three bottles were sealed on the spot. At the time of sealing of the bottles, Machhan Khan informed the Food Inspector that the milk really belonged to one Tahir, who had given it to him for sale. When, the process of sealing of bottles was going on, appellant Ram Bahadur arrived at the spot. He asked Machhan Khan not to put his thumb impression on the wrapper of the sealed bottles and incited him to run away. He also threatened the Food Inspector. As a result of this instigation and interference by Ram Bahadur, Machhan Khan ran away without fixing his thumb marks on the wrapper of the bottles. Machhan Khan did not possess any licence for selling milk. One of the sealed bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that the milk was deficient in non-fatty solids by 10 per cent and hence adulterated. After obtaining sanction, the applicants have been prosecuted and convicted, as above. It may also be mentioned here that Tahir was also made a co accused in the case, but he was acquitted by the trial court on the findings that the milk belonged to Machhan Khan and not to Tahir. I have heard learned counsel for the parties in both the revisions and also the counsel for the State. I have also perused the relevant papers and the record of the case.
(3.) COUNSEL appearing on behalf of the applicant Machhan Khan has argued that the sanction accorded in the instant case is invalid on the ground that there is some over-writing in the date of the sanction. He submits that the form of sanction is a printed one and that the Food Inspectors normally carry these forms in their pockets and subsequently they are filled-in to show that the sanction has been accorded. No such point has been agrued in any of the courts below. No such ground of revision has been taken even in this court. The basis on which the sanction has been attacked in the grounds of revision is that the sanction is "on a typed paper and the blank columns are filled up which clearly shows that the Sanctioning Authority did not apply his mind while granting sanction for the prosecution". This ground is not borne out from the sanction (Ex. Ka-6) which is not a typed form but a printed form. It has been mentioned in the. sanction that the Sanctioning Authority has perused the relevant papers in connection with the case before according his sanction. The Food-Inspector has also stated that the relevant papers were sent to the Sanctioning Authority for obtaining sanction. No suggestion was put to the Food Inspector in cross examination that he had filled-in the blank forms fictitiously, which he ~was carrying in his pocket. The Food Inspector has identified the signatures of the Sanctioning Authority. No suggestion has been put to him to indicate that there was any interpolation or forgery in the sanction. Pure questions of fact, which have never been agitated at any stage earlier, can not be allowed to be agitated in revision. In these circumstances, I do not find any substance in this submission. On the merits both the courts below have concurrently held the prosecution case established against Machhan Khan. They have appraised the evidence on the record, both, oral and documentary and have given good reasons for holding him guilty. 1 do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded concurrently by the subordinate courts to warrant interference in revision with the impugned order convicting the applicant Machhan Khan. On behalf of Ram Bahadur, learned counsel has advanced an argument that on the facts established in the case, Ram Bahadur accused can not be convicted under the provisions of Section 16 (1) (d). In order to consider this submission, we shall have to refer to the relevant sections under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.;