J.C.GUPTA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant in revision and learned A.G.A. for the State. With the consent of the partie Counsel, this revision is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.
(2.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 15 -3 -2001 passed by A.C.J.M. 1st Allahabad in Case No. 713 of 2001 -State v. Pappu and another, under Section 16 (1) (c), 7(1) and Rule 50(1) of the Preven ­tion of Food Adulteration Act. It is stated in the affidavit that the applicant came to know of the impugned order on 23 -7 -2001 and thereafter he applied for certified copy and filed this revision on 8 -8 -2001. Ac ­cording to the learned Counsel for the applicant the revision is within time from the date of knowledge of the impugned order. It is well -settled that period of limitation starts from the date of knowledge of the order. The revision is thus treated as within time. On merit the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the complaint in question had been filed to prosecute the applicant for contravening the provisions of Section 7 of the Preven ­tion of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 50 (1) of the Rules and there committing an offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Act. Sanction order dated 22 -2 -2001 indicates that the permission was granted to prosecute the applicant under Section 7 read with Rule 50 (1) punishable under Section 16(l) (b) of the Act. Rely ­ing upon the decision of this Court in the ca&eofStateofU.Pv.MoolChand, 1981 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 328, it is submitted by the applicant's Counsel that on the basis of sanction order in question the applicant could not be prosecuted as there was no sanction to prosecute him under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (c) of the Act. In the case of Moot Chand (supra), it was held that if in a complaint filed by the Food Inspector under Section 7 (1) (iii) it was mentioned that the report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample of mustard oil contained 30.3 percent of linseed oil and the respondent did not have the licence for selling mustard oil, he was therefore, guilty under Section 7/16 of ihe Act. The written consent was given by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari for the prosecu ­tion of the respondent under Section 16 of the Act for the breach of Section 7 (1) (iii) of the Act read with Rule 50 of the Rules. No consent was given by the Nagar Swas ­thya Adhikari for the prosecution of the respondent under Section, 7/16 of the Act for breach of Rule 44 (e) of the Rules. On these facts it was held that if written con ­sent is given by the authority concerned for the prosecution of a specified offence no prosecution for a different offence can take place, in view of Section 20 (1) of the Act. Reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision in State of Bombay v. Par -shottam Kanaiyalal, 1979 F.A.J. 407.
(3.) IN the present case the Court finds that Nagar Swasihya Adhikari by the order dated 22 -2 -2001 has granted sanction to prosecute the applicant in revision for contravention of provisions of Section 7 read with Rule 50 (1) punishable under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. There is no written consent or sanction of Nagar Swas ­thya Adhikari to prosecute the applicant in revision under Section 7 read with Sec ­tion 16 (1) (c) of the Act for which the applicant has been summoned by the learned Magistrate. The instant prosecu ­tion of the applicant is on its face value illegal. Accordingly, the summoning order as well as the proceedings pending against the applicant before the learned Magistrate arc quashed.;