S.J.HYDER,J. - (1.) THE applicants in this case were convicted under section 16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act and were sentenced to undergo rigo­rous imprisonment for a period of one year R. I. each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. The judgment also directed that in case of default in payment of fine they shall undergo rigorous imprison­ment for a further period of three months. They preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge Farrukhabad. He dismissed the said appeals but reduced the sentence awarded to the applicants. He directed that each one of them shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and shall pay a fine of Rs. 1000/. The appellate order further pro­vided that in case of default in payment of fine imposed each of the two appli­cants shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six weeks.
(2.) SHORTLY stated the prosecution case was that Bhagwan Das applicant is a licensed vendor at Railway Station Far­rukhabad for selling tea and light refreshments and that Suresh Chandra applicant is his servant. On 31st day of December 1973, it was found that coloured cream pastry were being sold at the stall of Bhagwan Das by Suresh Chandra. The Railway Food Inspector purchased the pastry on payment of 0.90 paise and it was reported by Public Analyst after the examination of the samples that they were coloured with the coaltar dyes of a description, which are unfit for human consumption and were not permissible to be sold under the provisions of Rules framed under the aforesaid Act. The applicants pleaded not guilty to the charge. Four prosecu­tion witnesses were examined in support of the charge and the two courts below have believed their evidence and I do not find any error in the assessment made by them. The finding of fact recorded by the two courts below is accordingly affirmed. The only question of substance, which has been argued is that the sanction accorded for the prosecution of the applicants on the report of the Food Inspector by the Medical Officer of Health was not in accordance with the law. The Reliance has been placed in that connection on the case reported in Chunni Lal applicant Versus State. In the said case a single judge of this court on a consideration of the sanction accorded in that case came to the conclusion that the District Medical Officer of Health, Kanpur had mechanically signed the order according sanction under section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adultera­tion Act, 1973, A.C.R. page 254, without applying his mind to the contents of the report. In the said case the Food Inspector had written the report and below the report he had also written in his own hand writing the order accord­ing sanction in purported compliance of provisions of section 20 of the Act. On the said facts the Single Judge concluded that the act of signing the purported order of sanction was a mechanical act and that the District Medical Officer of Health had not performed the statutory obligation imposed upon him under section 20 of the Act, after applying his own mind to the contents of the report submitted to him by the Food Inspector. In the said case the learned Judge observed as follows :- "It is, therefore, manifest that at the time the Food Inspector formu­lated the complaint in regard to which consent in writing under section 20 of the Act was required before the case was sent to the court for prosecution of the applicant, the Food Inspector took It for granted that necessary consent would be given."
(3.) IN the instant case the report of the Food Inspector and the order under section 20 of the Act aforesaid purported to have been passed by the Divisional Medical Officer North Eastern Railway, Izatnagar, Bareilly is Ext. Ka.-3. From a perusal of the said order it appears that the report and the order under section 20 of the Act also contained the number of the endorsement made in the D.M.O's. office which is also typed. At the top of the order "Izatnagar, dt" is also written with the same typewriter. The word "dt." obviously is the short form of "date". There is, however, no date actual­ly written after the words "dt." It is evident that the order under section 20 of the Act in the instant case also suffers from the same vice which existed in the case of Chunni Lal (supra). On a perusal of the entire document Ext. Ka.-3, the conclusion is inescapable that the Food Inspector not only formulated the com­plaint but also wrote out the order under section 20 of the Act. He pre­supposed that the sanction would be accorded by the Medical Officer of Health as a matter of routine. The only contribution made by the Medical Officer of Health in the purported order under section 20 of the Act is that he had appended his signatures to it and has written the date of the order below his signatures. There is no difference in the facts of this case and in the case of Chunni Lal (supra). I, therefore, have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the signatures of the sanctioning authority were appended without any application of mind on his part.;