D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel on behalf of the parties.
(2.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that learned Sub - Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur quite mechanically has taken cognizance of the offence on 5.11.2003 under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as against the petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Agarwal though no sanction was accorded by the competent authority as required by law as contained in Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It has been pointed out with reference to Annexure 2 which is the sanction order of Civil Surgeon -cum -Chief Medical Officer, East Singbhum, Jamshedpur, the competent authority under the statute to accord sanction for prosecution that he had given written consent for launching the prosecution only against Rabi B. Pareekh, Diloo B. Pareekh, Sri Atul R. Taurik and Mrs. Anahita A Taunk and not against the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 (Food Inspector) it is stated that a subsequent written consent was accorded by the Civil Surgeon -cum -Chief Medical Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur by way of corrigendum that the name of the petitioner was left to be mentioned on account of human error in the previous sanction letter dated 4.11.2003 and it was requested to the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur to accept the error.
(3.) IT is admitted fact that there is no sanction for launching prosecution against the petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Agarwal for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and hence cognizance taken by the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C/2 Case No. 6243 of 2003 on 5.11.2003 is quashed.;