P.N. Bakshi, J. - (1.) THE applicant has been convicted and sentenced to 6 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Etah. Hence this revision. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the counsel for the State. I have also perused the impugned orders and the record of the case. According to the prosecution case, the Food Inspector Daya Shanker had purchased buffalo milk from the accused applicant in the town of Kashganj at about 7 P. M. on December 3, 1976, in accordance with law. One of the sample Phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that it was deficient in fat contents by 33 percent and in non-fatty solids by 23 per cent. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that in the instant case the sanction has been accorded by the Chief Medical Officer without perusing the relevant documents on the record without applying his mind. In order to substantiate this submission, he has placed before me the evidence on the record It appears that the Food Inspector Daya Shanker who had originally taken the sample was on leave, when the papers in connection therewith are alleged to have been sent to the Chief Medical Officer for his sanction. THEse papers were actually sent by Sudarshan Rai P.W. 2. Sudarshan Rai has stated that he had sent all the papers along with his report (Ex. Ka 5) to the Chief Medical Officer for sanction. I have perused the report Ex. Ka 5. THEre is no mention in this report as to what were the actual papers that were sent along with that report. THE normal and usual procedure is that the papers sent along with the report for sanction are mentioned therein either on the face of the report if it contains a column or at the back of the report. In the instant case, no details of the papers have been mentioned at all. Another significant feature which has to be taken into consideration is that in the order for sanction Ex. Ka 6 dated 19th April, 1977, there is a column 'Sanlagna' 'enclosure'. This column is also blank. After the Chief Medical Officer grants his sanction for prosecution, the papers in connection therewith are of no use to him. THE inclusion of this column in the form of sanction his been done clearly with the intention that the papers perused by the Chief Medical Officer are also to be returned along with sanction. More so, because these are all relevant documents and have got to be filed in court. THE absence of the mention of these enclosures in the sanction at the place specifically provided for is a very important circumstance. It is argued that the statement of the Food Inspector has not been challenged in the cross-examination. THErefore, it should be presumed that all the relevant papers were sent to the Chief Medical Officer. It is not for the accused to establish conclusively the defence, which he might take up during the pendency of a case. THE court has to be satisfied with all reasonable doubt that the case for the prosecution inspires confidence. Even though there may be no cross examination of the Food Inspector on the general statement given by him, yet the court can look for corroboration of his statement from the circumstances of the case and the evidence on the record in order to be satisfied that the statement is true and believable. As I have mentioned above, the report which was sent to the Chief Medical Officer for sanction does not mention the details of the papers, which accompanied it. If it had been mentioned, this circumstance would have corroborated the statement of the food Inspector. Further the sanction granted by the Chief Medical Officer also doss not mention the details of the papers which ware returned along with the sanction even though a specific column has been mentioned in the sanctioning order. This sanctioning order, I would like to clarify is a printed form 'Baad Swikrit Patra' in which only the blanks have been filled in with the aid of a carbon. THE column of enclosure had been left blank. Who has filled these blanks in carbon is not known. It is true that the Chief Medical Officer has signed the sanction, but the circumstances mentioned above lead to the suspicion that the relevant papers were not before him otherwise there was no reason why they should not have been returned along with the sanction. Both these circumstances to my mind are very strong circumstance which create a reasonable suspicion in my mind about the reliability of part this of the statement of the Food Inspector Sri Sudarshan Rai P. W. 2 who was not the Food Inspector who had purchased the sample originally but was an official to whom the case had been transferred due to Daya Shanker, food inspector, being on leave. I am not satisfied on the material on the record that the relevant papers in connection with the sanction were placed before the Chief Medical Officer before he granted the sanction in the instant case. THErefore, the sanction Ex. Ka 6 is no sanction in the eyes of law. This revision application is hereby allowed. THE conviction of the applicant and the sentence imposed upon him for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is set aside. THE applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby discharged. THE fine if paid shall be refunded.;