V.N.Misra, J. - (1.) This is a revision by Ramji applicant, who has been convicted u/s 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by Sri B.N. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, Kasia and the conviction has been confirmed by Sri D.R. Singh v. Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria.
(2.) The preliminary point which must [be accepted in this case as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant was that in this case no sanction was given because all the papers were placed not before the C.M.O but the Dy. C.M.O and though he was not authorised to accord sanction, he proceeded to sanction the prosecution. But he did not apply his mind to the material before him and merely wrote "seen" on the papers produced before him. This according to the learned counsel was no sanction and the applicant could not be prosecuted.
(3.) I have seen the record of this case. There is nothing to indicate that the C.M.O. was on leave on that day and therefore, the Dy. C.M.O. was discharging his function and in the sanction given all that written was that the Dy. C.M.O. has seen the papers. This was clearly no sanction at all. The conviction of the applicant and the sentence awarded to him are hereby set aside.;