P.N.Bakshi - (1.) THE applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and has been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. His conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Basti. Hence this revision.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the impugned order and the record of the case. According to the case of the prosecution on 14th December, 1975, Food Inspector Satendra Pratap Narain Singh reached the shop of the accused-applicant and after disclosing his identity took from him a sample of mustard oil, in three separate phials from the tin containing the mustard oil. One such phial was sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample contained 55.22% linseed. After obtaining the necessary sanction from the District Medical Officer of Health, Basti the applicant was prosecuted and convicted as above. A number of points have been raised in this revision. The first point argued was that sanction to prosecute has not been given by the competent authority. I have perused the order granting sanction. Sanction has been given by the District Medical Officer of Health, Basti. Nothing has been shown to me to challenge the power of the District Medical Officer of Health, Basti to grant sanction in the instant case. In my opinion, he is the proper authority to grant sanction. This submission has no legs to stand upon. The next submission is that the sanctioning authority has not applied his mind to the facts of the case, because the order granting sanction is typewritten and has merely been signed by the District Medical Officer of Health, Basti. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this does not indicate an application of the mind of the sanctioning authority. There is no force in this submission also. The order granting sanction shows that the papers submitted by the Food Inspector Khallabad-cum-Chief Food Inspector Basti had been perused by the District Medical Officer of Health, Basti. He was of the opinion that it was a fit case for prosecuting the applicant. As such he accorded sanction. Under the signatures of the District Medical Officer of Health, Basti date has also been given. At one place correction has also been made and signed by the Distt. Medical Officer of Health. All these circumstances indicate that the competent authority had applied his mind to the facts of the case. Merely because the order of sanction is a typed document is no ground for holding that the sanction was granted blindfolded without the application of mind of the competent authority. This objection of the applicant is hence not tenable.
(3.) IN this very connection counsel for the State has urged that under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, only written consent of the authority concerned is required. He submits that there is difference between 'written consent' and 'sanction'. 'Written consent' according to him does not necessarily in ply the application of mind by a person in authority. It is merely a permission to prosecute. As such the argument is that sanction is not required under the P.F. A. Act as in the case of several other offences where under different enactments the word 'sanction' has been specifically used. IN support of his submission learned counsel has relied upon a single Judge decision of the Bombay High Court- State of Maharashtra v. Janardan Ram- Chandra Narwankar, 1978 CrLJ 811. IN para 54 of the aforesaid judgment the learned Judge has made the following observations: "Besides, it must be remembered, that under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act only consent of the Commissioner is necessary and not sanction. There is obvious difference between 'consent' and 'sanction'. 'Consent' implies mere concurrence or agreement whereas 'sanction' confers authority on the person in whose favour sanction is granted. Therefore, the considerations applicable in the case of 'sanction' would, in my opinion, not be applicable to a case where mere consent is required." With all due respect, , I do not agree with the observations of the learned Judge to the effect that the considerations which apply in the case of sanction would not apply in the case where mere written consent is required. It is true that consent implies concurrence or agreement, whereas 'sanction' confers authority on the person in whose favour sanction is accorded. To be more precise, in Food Adulteration cases written consent is granted by the District Medical Officer of Health to prosecute an accused for an offence under the Act. If the word 'sanction' had been used instead of 'written consent' that also would have meant approval for prosecution of the accused for an offence under this Act Whether it is written consent or sanction in either case, it is an official act of a superior by which he grants permission for the prosecution of an accused for an offence under the Act. In the Imperial Dictionary of the English Language, by John Ogilvie, LL. D. New Edition 1904, Vol. Ill, at page 766 'sanction' has been defined as an official act of a superior by which he ratifies and gives validity to the act of some other person or body. To give sanction means to ratify; to confirm ; to give validity or authority to; to approve of and to give countenance to. All these actions cannot be done without the application of mind by the authority concerned to the facts of the case.;