KAPUR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has been convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur by order dated 3. 1. 83 for the offence under Section 3/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. This conviction and sentence has been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur by the order dated 10th July, 1985. Against this, the present revision petition has been preferred.
(2.) THE question which has been mainly contended in this revision petition is that several over writings have been made in the complaint, in the written report submitted for the purpose of obtaining sanction for prosecution, and other documents. On basis of this it has been contended that the correct material was not placed before the sanctioning authority for obtaining the sanction and the sanction has been given on basis of some other sample and report. The facts necessary for appreciating this contention may be looked into. On 22nd September, 1978, Food Inspector Shri Hari Datta Sharma purchased 600 grams of powdered Dhania from the appellant and paid a sum of Rs. 3. 60 P. This was divided into three parts and sealed. Bhagwan Singh and Shiv Ram were present and they signed the report Ex. P. 2, prepared at that time. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. This was assigned the number 22/h/78. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample was found adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purely. Non-permitted colour was also found present. After receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector prepared the report Ex. P. 7 for purposes of obtaining sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. In this report, the number of the sample is mentioned as 25/h/78 and the commodity was first mentioned as Chilly powder but then correction was made that the powder was of Dhania. Even, the date of the report of the Public Analyst was first mentioned as 18. 11. 78 but. was corrected to 25th October, 1978. The number of the report of the Public Analyst was also corrected. Further, the fact that a sum of Rs. 6/- was paid to purchase the Dhania remained as it was when in this case the amount paid was Rs. 3. 60 p. Upon this report, sanction Ex P. 8 was accorded. Thus, the report made for obtaining sanction gives an incorrect sample number and the price paid for purchasing it. The number of the sample as mentioned in Ex. P. 2, the report prepared at the time of purchasing Dhania is 22/h/78 and the same sample number is repeated in Ex. P. 8, a letter sent to the Public Analyst and in the report of the Public Analyst which is Ex. P. . In the complaint also, first 'red chilli' powder was written and it has been corrected as 'powder of Dhania'. The sample number Has been mentioned correctly i. e. 22/h/78. There is a mix-up of samples and this fact is confirmed by the statement of DW 1, Shiv Ram whose presence has been recorded on the report Ex. P. 2. He has stated that the Food Inspector had purchased chillies from the petitioner. One more witness D. W. 2, Gulab Chand has also stated that chillies were purchased but then his presence cannot be verified. The Food Inspector was confronted with the question that actually he had taken sanction for prosecution for adulterated powder of chillies but later on he had made alterations in the complaint as well as in the report submitted to obtain sanction for prosecution. He denied the suggestion. His contention is that the number of the sample 22/h/78 is correct and No. 25/h/78 has been inadvertently mentioned. Had there been only mixing up of sample numbers or corrections in the form prepared by the Food Inspector, the matter would have been different. As seen above, there is correction not only in the item, but in the date of purchase in the number and date of the report of Public Analyst. The amount paid for purchasing the powder of Dhania has also been wrongly mentioned. All these inconsistencies go to show that sanction has not been given on full and correct facts. The correction of red chillies powder to dhania powder in the complaint makes the confusion all the more complicated. When witness cited by the complainant but Examined by the accused also states that the item which was purchased was powder of chilly and not dhania, then there appears to be some confusion somewhere and this has not been explained. The sanction accorded by Ex. P. 8 does not contain the name of the article of the sample number of the item, the reason for which the sample was found adulterated etc. For finding out what were the facts and circumstances, on the basis of which sanction have been given one has to look into. Ex. P. 7 and in this report, the sample number and the amount paid for purchasing the dhania are incorrect, In these circumstances, therefore, this is a case of mix up of the samples and reports and the item purchased hence the conviction of the accused petitioner cannot be sustained. It may be stated that while taking this view, I do not mean to say that a Food Inspector cannot be believed without some independent witnesses in support of his contention. He has to see to it that the facts including the reasons why a commodity has been found to be adulterated are correctly placed before the authority giving sanction for the prosecution of the accused. When incorrect facts are placed before the sanctioning authority then the sanction on basis of the same cannot be said to be a proper sanction. In the result, the revision petition is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside. . ;