( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P. M. Thakkar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

( 2 ) BY way of this Revision Application, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 21st October, 1992 of conviction and sentence passed by the Metropolitan magistrate, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad, and confirmed by the Additional City Sessions judge, Ahmedabad, vide judgment and order dated 11th February, 1994, on various grounds mentioned in the memo of the revision.

( 3 ) MR. Joshi has mainly relied upon the following aspects of the matter : (i) The Courts below ought to have held mat there was no valid sanction which can be said to be sanction granted by applying mind from the Competent Court to prosecute the petitioner under Section 20 ( 1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore, such prosecution cannot sustain and therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. (ii) That while affording opportunity to explain the case of the prosecution, no specific question as to the findings recorded by the Central Analyst has been asked in the present case and therefore, non-asking of such questions goes to the root of the validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence and hence, the same is required to be quashed and set aside.

( 4 ) TO appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner, for the sake of brevity and convenience, it would be proper to have a look on the facts of the case placed by the prosecution against the petitioner. According to the prosecution, on 29th november, 1988, a sample of cow milk was drawn by the Food Inspector, i. e. complainant of Ahmedabad City and the same was found adulterated/not as per the standards prescribed by the Public Analyst and. therefore, after observing procedural formalities, a complaint was lodged in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, ahmedabad, on 5th October, 1989. The metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 6, after completion of the trial convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 7 (1) and 16 (l) (a) of the Act, and imposed imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. Meanwhile, i. e. after filing of the prosecution, the petitioner-accused had claimed that the second sample may be sent to Central Food Laboratory (for short cfl) for analysis and on analysis, the CFL found that the sample of cow milk analysed by the cfl was not upto the standards. I am told that, according to the CFL, percentage of water was more than the prescribed standards. Obviously, therefore the sample was lacking adequate percentage of fat. The said judgment and order of conviction was assailed by way of preferring Criminal appeal bearing No. 36 of 1992, before the additional City Sessions Judge, ahmedabad and after hearing the parties, the Additional City Sessions Judge upheld the judgment and order of conviction.

( 5 ) MR. JOSHI while magnifying the point raised by the petitioner in the Revision application stated that the sanction to prosecute the petitioner under Section 20 of the Act is not a legal and valid sanction and he has further stated that the sanctioning authority has granted sanctioned mechanically and granted sanction by writing following arguments at the bottom of the complaint filed before the metropolitan Magistrate "scrutinised all the papers and sanctioned prosecution. "

( 6 ) IT is true that the complainant has said in his deposition that the relevant papers along with the draft complaint were placed before the sanctioning authority and so according to Mr. Sood, this can be said to be a valid sanction. But it is rightly argued by mr. Joshi that the sanction obviously looks granted mechanically and the same is given without application of mind. This Court and the Apex Court has dealt with this aspect on various occasions and under different lines where statutory legal sanction to pro