Murlidhar - (1.) APPLICANT Ram Kreet has been convicted under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to R. I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default further R. I. for one month.
(2.) THE prosecution case was Chat the food inspector had taken a sample of buffalo milk from the applicant on 13-10-1977 at about 12 noon and on analysis this milk was found adulterated, the fat contents being found to be barely 4% and non-fat solid contents 7.2% which is as against the prescribed 6% and 9% respectively. THE applicant's case was of false implication because he failed to comply with the food inspector's demand of Ghee and curd in connection with a marriage. Both the courts below found the prosecution case proved and convicted the applicant. It is not necessary to refer to the evidence or the other point in controversy in the courts below because in this court the learned counsel for the applicant has fairly confined his arguments to only two points. The first contention was that there has been a breach of Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act inasmuch as no intimation as required by that provision along with a copy of the public analyst's report was received by him. The record shows that the food inspector proved that a copy of the public analyst's report was sent to the accused per covering letter Ex. ka. 8 a copy of which was marked to him also. During cross-examination he gave out that the registered cover was despatched on 23-8-78. The registration receipt dated 23-8-78 is also on record. It must, therefore, be held that) an intimation as required by Section 13 (2) with a copy of the public analyst's; report was sent to the applicant after the institution of the complaint on 22-8-78. The learned counsel criticised this on the ground that there was no evidence that the registered cover had been properly addressed. There is no substance in this contention. The office copy of the intimation mentions the address Ram Kreet Yadav s/o Lachhman Yadav r/o Aklohiya Tola-Baraka, Thana-Khorabar, P. O. Khorabar, district Gorakhpur. This must be regarded as sufficient address. The fact that the post office is not mentioned cannot in any way lead to the inference that the cover was not properly addressed. There was not even a. suggestion that the address noted in Ex. ka. 8 was incorrect. Infact the address in the accused's bond before the police which is on record is also the same. There has thus been proper compliance of Sec. 13(2) and the plea has no substance. The learned counsel then attacked Ex. ka. 9 the sanction by the Chief Medical Officer. The record shows that initially when the public analyst's report Ex. ka. 5 had been received in the office, the Chief Medical Officer passed an order "F. I. please prosecute." This order Ex. ka. 6 is dated 22-4 which would be 22-4-78 for the report is of November 1977. Following this the food inspector prepared the complaint Ex. ka. 7 dated 22-6-78 (the year 1977 in it is an obvious mistake for 78 as explained by him in his evidence). He has further deposed that thereafter all the papers were sent to the Chief Medical Officer who accorded the sanction Ex. ka. 8. Ex. ka. 8 is on a printed form with the blanks filled in type written writing. The only ink writing is the signatures of the Chief Medical Officer bearing the date 20-8-78 The learned counsel for the revisionist urged that this appears to be a case of mechanical signatures for there was no indication of the Chief Medical Officer having done anything except signing. He has relied upon Chunni Lal v. State, 1974 ACC 96 and Krishna Lai v. State, 1978 AWC 466 in both of which cases the sanction was held to be invalid for want of application of mind. The facts show that in both these cases there were certain anomalies either in the sanction form or the proposal for sanction. In Chunni Lal's case all the entries were in the food inspector's hand but fourth column had been left blank including the court in which the complaint was to be filed. His Lordship B.D. Gupta, J. while observing (hat no particular form of sanction is necessary and that the mere fact that the sanction had been granted on a printed form and did not mention that the authority concerned had examined the record and satisfied itself about the desirability to prosecute did not justify a finding that the sanctioning authority has not applied his mind held on the facts of the case that the particular sanction before him did not show application of mind, In Krishna Lai's case also the proposal form gave wrong dates of sample taking and sending the sample for analysis. While the Public Analyst's report showed that the sample had been received by him much before the date mentioned in the proposal form. It was mainly on account of this anomaly that his Lordship Bakshi, J. held the sanction to be vitiated for want of application of mind. In this connection his Lordship went on to observe : "In all fairness to the citizen, where liberty is at stake and who is liable to serious consequences of prosecution under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the blank columns of this form granting sanction, should normally be filled in by the Medical Officer of Health himself, unless for adequate reasons it cannot be done. Such an action on his part would indicate that the Medical Officer of Health had personally applied his mind to the facts of the case before granting tide requisite sanction. If somebody else fills up these blanks, as appears to have been done in the instant case, it would give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the signatures have been mechanically affixed to the document by the sanctioning authority without the application of his mind. To centralise any such misgiving or suspicion in the mind of the accused applicant I consider it very desirable (that the order granting sanction on the prescribed form should be personally filled in by the sanctioning authority, otherwise such loopholes are bound to create confusion and provide ample material for argument on behalf of the convicted accused." With great respect I am of the opinion that these observations are merely obiter and cannot be interpreted to mean that even in the absence of any other anomaly as existed in that case the mere fact that the sanctioning authority and not filled in the blanks in his handwriting can lead to the conclusion that there was no application of mind. When a literate person signs a paper specially in the course of his official duty, the presumption is that he has applied his mind. But special features may rebut this presumption and show the contrary. No particular manner according sanction as might be inferred from the above quoted observations taken in isolation has been prescribed. As for the need to avoid room for attack on the sanction perhaps no sanctioning authority can make the sanction so elaborate and foolproof as to leave no scope for challenging it. Clearly enough there can be no requirement that the blank in the sanction order should not be type written or should not be in the hand of any person other than the sanctioning authority himself though this feature may have some relevance when certain anomalies lend substance to the challenge on the ground of lack of application of mind.
(3.) ANOTHER ground on which the sanction was attacked was that the date is found only under the signatures of the sanctioning authority and not at the top in the column for date which is blank. This I think is a minor omission. The sanctioning authority may very well have thought that after placing the date under its signatures in its own hand it is not accessary to fill to top column. In any case no inference can follow from this negligible omission. I would, therefore, hold that the sanction is perfectly in order. There are no extenuating circumstances in this case nor can this be regarded as a fit case for release on probation even if the U. P. First Offenders Release on Probation Act be held applicable. The minimum sentence awarded must therefore, be held to be proper. The revision is dismissed. The revisionist is on bail under this Court's order dt. 1-8-80 and shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence according to law. --- Revision dismissed.;