M.A.A.KHAN, J. - (1.) IN this case Lalchand Petitioner sold on 20.1.1982 mixed milk to Qutbuddin, Food Inspector (PW.l) near. Jhal Ka Kunwan at Tonk. On analysis the Public Analyst found the sample milk adulterated for its not conforming to the prescribed standard of milk fat content at 4.5% and solid non -fat contents at 8.5%. The sample milk had fat content at 5.2% and solids non -fat at 6.10%. On trial the learned C.J.M. Tonk found the petitioner guilty of offence Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration At, 1954 (the Act), convicted him as such and sentenced to 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment and Rs. 1,000/ -fine. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Hence, this revision petition Under Section 397 Cr. P.C.
(2.) MR . Narendra Jain, the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that since the case against the petitioner was not tried as a summary trial case, as required by Section 16A of the Act and was tried as a warrant trial case, the trial stood vitiated. However, no prejudice caused to the petitioner by the trial adopted in his case was pointed out. In the case of Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 1996 (3) W.L.C. (Raj.) 722 a similar question had arisen and the question was referred to a larger Bench for answer. The larger Bench opined that in post conviction cases the trial of a case for offence Under Section 16(1) read with Section 7 of the Act by adopting the procedure of a warrant case does not stand vitiated unless prejudice caused to the accused is shown. Since no prejudice occasioned to the petitioner by trying the case of the petitioner as per procedure for a warrant case has been shown in the present case, the argument advanced by Mr. Jain has no substance and is accordingly rejected.
(3.) IT was next urged by Mr. Jain that before granting the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind and therefore, the very basis for the prosecution of the petitioner was bad. No specific defect, save that the sanction Ex. P. 8 was not prepared in his hand by the sanctioning authority, was pointed out'.;