S.I.Jafri - (1.) DHARAMVIR applicant has preferred this revision against his conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentences of six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The applicant DHARAMVIR was tried on the charge under Section 7/16 of the Act in the Court of Sri Subhash Chand, Special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar who convicted the applicant under Section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo six months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- by his judgment and order dated 1-110-81. Aggrived by the aforesaid judgment and order the applicant filed appeal in the court of Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar but the same was dismissed by Sri M. H. Khan IV Additional Sessions Judge Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 172/81 by his judgment and order dated 5-12-81. As stated above the present application was preferred against the orders of the Courts below.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that PW 1 Dhanwan Singh, Food Inspector took sample of milk from the applicant at about 8.15 A. M. on 30-5-1978 on G. T. Road near Town of Khatoli, P. S. Khatoli, District Muzaffarnagar. THE applicant was carrying buffalo milk for sale. THE Food Inspector purchased 660 ml. milk for analysis from the applicant and he divided the milk in three phials and sealed the phials on the spot. One of them was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. It was found by the Public Analyst vide his report that the milk was deficient in fat contents by 28% and in non-fatty solids by about 9% and, therefore, the sample was found to be adulterated. The Food Inspector, after obtaining sanction from the Prescribed Authority, filed the complaint against the abovenamed accused in the Court of the Magistrate. The applicant admitted the purchase of 660 Ml. of milk from him by the Food Inspector. He also admitted his signature on the receipt but be added that he did not carry business of selling milk and he was taking the milk for his sister. The prosecution examined Food Inspector Bhanwar Singh PW 1 and Sher Singh PW 2 in support of its case. The applicant examined Sudhir DW 1 in his defense and the Court examined Dr. R. B. Lal, as CW 1. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the applicant accordingly as stated above. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Trial Court, the applicant filed appeal in the Court of Sessions which was also dismissed on 5-12-81 by IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar and as such the order of conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court was affirmed in appeal.
(3.) I have heard Sri Raj Kumar Jain, Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Government Advocate for the State at a great length and I come to the irresistible conclusion that the conviction and sentence of the applicant recorded by the Courts below must be set aside. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the sanction for prosecution of the applicant under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not valid as it was not accorded by the competent Authority i.e. the Chief Medical Officer Muzaffarnagar. In this context, Section 20 of the Act is quoted below : s;