Mohd. Yamin, J. - (1.) -This revision has been preferred by accused petitioner Jes Raj under the following circumstances:- There as a partnership firm named as Ganesh Desi Ghee Bhandar, Sriganganagar. Petitioner and Chhotulal were its partners. The same was dissolved on 1.1.83 and the petitioner remained the sole proprietor thereof. On 27.3.83 the shop was checked by Chiranjiial, Food Inspector of Sriganganagar. The petitioner was present. Deshi Ghee was found at the shop in an aluminium container measuring about 30 kg. The Food Inspector purchased 450 grams of ghee and paid Rs. 14.40 as its price to the petitioner. He also obtained a receipt after paying the price. He informed the petitioner that ghee was being purchased as sample for the purpose of analysis. Information was given in prescribed from No. VI. Before Ramswaroop Sehgal and Babulal, the ghee was poured in three clean and dry bottles. They were sealed and thereafter, one of them was sent to the public analyst, Sriganganagar along with form No. VII. Another form No. VII was sent to the public analyst along with sample of seal. Another bottle was sent to the Local Food Authority, Sriganganagar. Report of the public analyst dated 4.4.83 was received and the sample was found adulterated, as it did not confirm to the prescribed standards of the purity and was highly adulterated with vanaspati. Papers were submitted for sanction to the Local Authority and sanction for prosecution Ex.P 10 was obtained. Food Inspector, Chiranjiial PW 1, put up the complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar on 25.5.83. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar explained the ingredients of offence to the petitioner on 4.9.84 who claimed trial. Thereafter PW 1 Chiranjiial Food Inspector, Babulal and Ramswaroop Sehgal attesting witnesses were examined and then the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not produce any witness in defence. His defence was that the day of checking i.e. 2 .3.83 was a Sunday and the festival of Holi was to be celebrated after 2-3 days. The ghee was kaccha and was being heated. It was not saleable and he had requested the Food Inspector that the sample should be taken from the ghee which was prepared and was ready for sale but even then the sample was taken. He also pleaded that the shop is not opened on Sundays but because of ensuing Holi festival he had gone to his shop in order to clean it. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing both the parties convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to one year's R.l. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. He further ordered that in case the fine is not deposited the petitioner will undergo R.l. for two months. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge which was decided by Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar, who maintained the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conviction should not be maintained in this case because firstly, the sanction given by Local Authority which is Ex.R 10 has been given without applying mind particularly because the case of the petitioner was that he had gone to the shop in order to clean the shop and sample was taken from the container which was being heated in order to prepare the ghee. His second contention is that the learned Magistrate did not put questions regarding the report of the public analyst when the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. and the petitioner has been greatly prejudiced Therefore, his contention is that this revision should be allowed and the petitioner should be acquitted.
(3.) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has controverted these arguments and has tried to support the judgments of the courts below. So far as sanction, Ex.R 10, is concerned, I find that it does bear the signatures of the Local Health Authority but the sanction is in a printed form in which blank columns have been filled. It does mention the name of the petitioner as well as his address in the hand writing of somebody else other than the Local Health Authority.;