P.N.Bakshi, J. - (1.) THE applicant has been convicted under Section 7 (i) and Section 7 (iii) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each count. His conviction has been maintained in appeal but the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him has been reduced to 3 months' R. I. and fine to Rs. 500/- on each count. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo 2 months' R. I. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently, hence this revision.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. According to the prosecution case, the applicant was carrying three cans of milk on his cycle for sale near village Bhojpur when its sample was purchased by the Food Inspector in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The milk was kept in three dry clean bottles after adding the necessary preservative. One of these sample-bottles was sent for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample was deficient in fat contents as also in non-fatty solids by about -8 per cent each. After obtaining the sanction for prosecution, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. Counsel for the applicant has argued that the sanction for prosecution is legally defective. The sanctioning authority has not applied his mind to the facts of the case. I have perused the order, granting sanction (Ex. Ka-5). The sanction has been granted by the District Medical Officer of Health, Saharanpur. It is mentioned in the said order that the papers along with the Food Inspector's report have been seen by the Sanctioning Authority. After considering the same, he has permitted the prosecution to be instituted against the applicant. I find no reason to disbelieve the contents of Ex. Ka-5.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has said that since the order granting sanction is a typed document, and the Sanctioning Authority has merely appended his signature thereon, it should be taken that the Medical Officer of Health has not applied his mind before granting sanction. I do not agree with this submission. No particular form of sanction has been prescribed. It is not an unusual feature for a senior officer to dictate an order and for the clerk to type out and to place it before him for his signature. This appears to have been done in the instant case. I am satisfied that the sanction granted by the Medical Officer of Health, Saharanpur was a valid sanction in accordance: with law and not a mechanical one. Learned counsel for the applicant has then brought to my notice Rule: 16 (a) (b) (c) framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, prior to its Amendment in 1977. On its basis, he has urged that the sample taken from the applicant was not packed and sealed in accordance with the directions given in these rules. He has argued that after the sample-bottle had been securely fastened, it was to be wrapped completely with a fairly strong thick paper. Thereafter, it was to fee further secured by strong twine or thread and sealed at least at four distinct places. One of the seals was to be an the top of the packet, one at the bottom and two others on the body of the packet. The knots of twine were to be covered by sealing wax bearing the impression of the seal of the sender.;