( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition which is directed against order dated 18th July 1984 of Shri V. K. Shali, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, succinctly are that on 25th August 1983 Sanjiv Kumar, Food Inspector, purchased a sample of mustard oil from M/s. Durga Provision Store, Street No. 12, Kailash Nagar, Delhi, in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the Act ) and the rules made thereunder for analysis. The said oil had been stored by the aforesaid firm for sale and. was meant for human consumption. The respondent-Brij Mohan was conducting the business of the firm at the relevant time. The sample oil was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and it was found to be sub-standard in quality. Thereupon, after obtaining the consent of the State Government (Secretary (Medical), Delhi Administration) a complaint was instituted by the Delhi Administration for the prosecution of the respondent under Section 7/16 of the Act.

( 2 ) DURING the course of trial Shri S. K. Verma, Senior Prosecutor, who had been authorised by the Secretary (Medical), Delhi Administration, to launch the prosecution appeared in the witness box and he, inter alia, wanted to prove the consent granted by the Secretary (Medical), Delhi Administration as he claimed to be conversant with the hand-writing and signatures of the Secretary (Medical ). However, the learned Magistrate vide impugned order held that only the Secretary (Medical) namely Shri M. C. Verma, who had given the consent for prosecution was competent to prove not only the factum of sanction but also his signature thereon. Hence, he directed that Shri M. C. Verma be summoned as a witness in court.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved the Delhi Administration has filed this revision petition contending that the learned Magistrate has slipped into a grave error in holding that only Shri M. C. Verma could prove the sanction as well as his signatures thereon and no other witness could be permitted to do so unless and until the prosecution showed that the Secretary (Medical), Delhi Administration, was not. available unreasonable delay or expense. The impugned portion of the order is extracted below for ready reference:

"the purpose of these provisions is to see that the best possible evidence is brought to the court. When the document itself has been produced in the court that can be proved only by the author who has drawn the document. In the instant case the document which is sought to be proved by the learned Additional P. P. through the complainant Public Witness I S. K. Verma is the consent granted by Shri M. C. Verma, Secretary (Medical), Delhi Administration, Shri M. C. Verma is still working as Secretary (Medical ). This is not the case of the prosecution that Shri M. C. Verma is not available or his attendance cannot be procured without any unreasonable delay or expense. Therefore, in my view, it is M. C. Verma, Secretary (Medical) only who is competent to prove the contents of the consent granted by him under Section 20 of the P. F. A. Act. "

( 4 ) THE attention of the learned Magistrate was invited to Section 47 and 67 of the Evidence Act in this context by the prosecution. However, the learned Magistrate was of the view that Section 47 has no application to the present case. Says he :

". . . IT only pertains to an opinion as to the handwriting and lays down that when the court has to form its opinion as to the person by whom the document was written or signed the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed or that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is relevant fact. But in the instant case this court is not to form an opinion regarding the writing or signature of the Secretary (Medical ). It is the admitted case the consent bears the signature of the Secretary (Medical) who is still available. Therefore, it is he who has to prove his h