V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is filed against the conviction of the petitioner under section 16 (1-A) and 7 read with 2 (i-a) (m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence to six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00. The facts of the case are, that P. W. 1 the Food Inspector, Eluru, visited the shop of the petitioner and found 9 gingili oil tins of 15 kgs. each, and took a sample having purchased 375 grams of gingili oil for Rs. 7-10 ps. under a receipt. He served Form No. VI on the petitioner informing him that he took samples for the purpose of analysis; he divided the said gingili oil into three parts and filled the said parts in three clean, dry and empty bottles and sealed the said bottles according to the procedure prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules and sent one such bottle to the Public Analyst for analysis, and that the Public Analyst after analysis opined that the sample sent to him is not conforming to Butyrorofractometer reading, Iodine value and Saponification value, and is therefore, adulterated. So, a complaint was filed by the Food Inspector. The prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 i. e. the Food Inspector and another and marked Exs. P-1 to P-16. The defence examined one witness as D. W. 1. The trial Court, after considering the entire material on record found the accused guilty of the offence with which he was charged, convicted add sentenced him to undergo R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 in default to suffer 4 months R. I. Against that judgment, an appeal is preferred. The appellate Court after having considered the entire material available on record, confirmed the conviction of the trial Court but reduced the sentence to six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00. Against that, the present revision is filed.

( 2 ) SRI T. Bali Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no proper sanction for prosecution in this case inasmuch as it is not in accordance with law. Ex. P-13 is the sanction order in this case. The sanction order reads as follows : "sanction : Dt. 27-9-86. RC. No. 216/f1/86 Ref :- 1. Public Analyst Report No. 504/85 dt. 26-8-86. 2. RC F2 No. 13093/86 dt. 15-9-86 of Health Officer i/c Eluru Municipality.

( 3 ) THE Food (Health) Authority A. P. , Hyderabad on perusal of the detailed report submitted in the letter second cited and mediators Report accords sanction to launch prosecution under provisions of P. F. Act, 1954 and Rule thereunder against Adda Kasi Visweswara Rao, proprietor of Srirama Gingelly Oil Mill, Boadati vari Veedhi D. No. 22-10-34, 14th Ward, Eluru in respect of sample bearing Code No. and Serial No. 5/51 No. 33/85-86, Gingelly Oil ( ) which is found to be adulterated as per Public Analyst Report Ist cited.

( 4 ) THE Health Officer i/c Eluru Municipality is requested to see that prosecution is launched immediately and intimate the date of institution of prosecution and C. C. No. Sd. Director and Food (Health) Authority".

( 5 ) BY reading the above sanction order it is very clear that the authority has not applied its mind as to what is the adulteration and for what reasons it is according sanction. The above sanction order clearly shows that the order is passed mechanically without applying its mind properly. Section 20 of the Food Adulteration Act as follows : "20 (1) : No prosecution for an offence under this Act, not being an offence under section 14 or Section 14-A shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government. Provided that a prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted by a purchase referred to in Section 12, if he produces in Court a copy of the report of the public analyst along with the complaint. 2. to 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( 6 ) AS p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document