Dalveer Bhandari, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi passed in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1980.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to four months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. of three months by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

( 3 ) THE petitioner aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge preferred TO this revision petition. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:

( 4 ) ON 13. 6. 1978, the Food Inspectors Mr. R. K. Ahuja and Mr. A. P. Singh went to the factory of M/s H. S. Oberoi Sons and Co. and had taken nine bottles of carbonated water from one crate out of a lot of different crates on payment of Rs. 26. 40. These nine bottles were divided into three parts and these were separately sealed in accordance with the Rules. The case of the prosecution is that though the contents in the carborated water showed the presence of saccharine but the bottle had no label declaration to that effect so the public analyst opined the sample to be adulterated.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, permissible limit of saccharine is to the extent of 100 parts per million (PPM ). According to Rule 32, a label has to be affixed specifying the name, trade name or description of food contained in the packet and the name and business address of the manufacturer or vendor or packer. The carbonated water bottle purchased by the Food Inspector had no such label. Ram Kaur was found to be the sole proprietor of the said firm while her son Harjeet Singh was alleged to have sold the sample for analysis as a person actually working on spot. Under Section 2 (ix) (k) an article is deemed to be mis-branded if it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of the Act and the Rules. Therefore, both the appellants have been charged for the offence of mis-branding.

( 6 ) DURING the pendency of this revision petition, Ram Kaur expired and her revision petition became infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms Neeta Thakur submitted that there is no valid sanction for prosecution as envisaged under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. She has drawn my attention to the original sanction order which was granted by the Secretary (Medical) Delhi Administration on 30. 10. 1978. This sanction is on cyclostyled performa where the names of the petitioners Harjeet Singh and Ram Kaur have been filled in later on. Similarly, carbonated water, name of the Inspector and date of lifting of the sample were filled in later on. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been no application of mind before granting sanction for the prosecution.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel has placed reliance on a number of decided judgments of this Court. In R. N. Gujral and another Vs Pritipal Gupta; 1988 (II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 84 this court observed that sanction granted on a cyclostyled form wherein the name of the accused had been typed in the body of a form; the date of lifting of the sample and also the food articles namely, mustard oil has also been typed in that form. The offence made out under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for which offence the respondent was tried, has also been mentioned. The court observed that the sanction of prosecution was not a proper sanction and therefore, the entire trial was vitiated.

( 8 ) MS Thakur, the learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on State (Delhi Admn.) Vs Shyam Lal; 1987 (II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 198. In this case also the sanction to prosecute was recorded by the Secretary (Medical) Delhi Administration and the sanction granted on a cyclostyled form wherein t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document