K.C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of the Civil and Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, dated 23-2-1973, rejecting the revision tiled by the applicants against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mainpuri, dated 9-1-1973. The prosecution case, very briefly stated, is that on December 17, 1969, at about 11-30 A.M. one Sri B.N. Lall, Food Inspector of the Municipal Board, Mainpuri, went to the shop of Krishna Murari Lal, the applicant No. 2, and demanded sample of Gajar-ka-Halwa for the purposes of sending the same to the Public Analyst. Sharad Chand, applicant No. 1, who was sitting at the shop at that time, refused to give the sample to the Food Inspector and instead he threw the entire Halwa in the furnace. The Food Inspector, thereupon, obtained the necessary sanction, as required by Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly stated as the Act'), against Sharad Chand and Krishna Murari Lal and thereafter filed the present complaint. After the complaint was filed, an objection was raised on behalf of the applicants about the validity of the sanction and on that basis the applicants claimed that they were not liable to be prosecuted. Both the courts below rejected their objection finding that the sanction as required by Section 20 of the Act had been duly obtained by the food Inspector. Aggrieved by these orders, the present revision has been filed.
(2.) In the revision, Sri V.K. Gupta, counsel appearing for the applicants, however, urged a new point, I he same is that according to the allegations of the prosecution in the complaint as well as in the report to the Prescribed Authority for sanction it is clear that the offence, if any, under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act was committed by Sharad Chand, and not by Krishna Murari Lal. He contended that Section 16(1)(b) of the Act applies only as against a person who prevents a Food Inspector from taking the sample, as authorised by the Act, and as Krishna Murari Lal was not at all responsible for preventing the Food Inspector from taking the sample, he could not be prosecuted for the offence under the aforesaid provision. The submission appears to be well founded. Section 16(1)(b) of the Act supports his contention fully. It applies only as against a person who prevents the Food Inspector from taking the sample, as authorised by the Act. According to the prosecution case, it was Sharad Chand who prevented the Food Inspector from taking the sample of Gajar-ka-Halwa. In this view of the matter, he alone could be prosecuted. There is nothing in Section 16(1)(b) of the Act to show that even for the offence contemplated by this clause, the principle of vicarious liability could be imported and applicant No. 2, Krishna Murari Lal, could also be prosecuted for the alleged act of Sharad Chand. Accordingly it appears that the prosecution of Krishna Murari Lal cannot proceed.
(3.) So far as the applicant No. 1 Sharad Chand is concerned, the ground urged by the learned counsel for the applicants was that the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind as was required by it by Section 20 of the Act. After having perused the record, I am not satisfied that the said submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants has any substance. In the report submitted to the local authority, it was clearly mentioned that Sharad Chand had prevented the Food Inspector from obtaining the sample. This, in the circumstances, was in itself sufficient for granting sanction for his prosecution. Accordingly, the second ground also fails.;