A fresh sanction for prosecution is required under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 where the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory finds adulteration for different reasons than the report of the Public Analyst.

V.K. Mehrotra, J.—Criminal Revision No. 20 of 1985, Rattan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, was filed in this Court on April 4, 1985. Rattan Lal was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, under section 7 read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brief "the Act") by judgment and order dated November 17, 1984. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. The offence found proved against him was of selling adulterated cow milk to the Food Inspector. In appeal, the conviction was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Simla, on March 22, 1985. The sentence awarded to the petitioner was also upheld.

2. The sample of milk was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst on account of the fact that the milk fat was found to be only 2.6% which was deficient by 2.9% than the minimum prescribed standard. One part of the sample was also sent, as per the request of the petitioner, to the Central Food Laboratory. It was found to be adulterated, inasmuch as, it had only 2.6% fat and solids (Non-fat 6.6%). The contents of fat were found to be the same as had been found by the Public Analyst. There was, however, a difference in the result of the analysis by the two authorities in regard to milk solids non-fat. The Public Analyst had found the solids non-fat to be 9.6%.

3. The petitioner has taken several grounds in the memorandum of revision. One of the grounds is that the variation to the extent of 3.0% of milk solid non-fats in the two reports showed that the sample of milk was not a representative sample. The revision was heard in part by one of us (V. P. Bhatnagar, J.). On March 28, 1989, one of the submissions made was that after the receipt of the report from the Director, Central Food Laboratory, a fresh sanction for the prosecution was necessary to be obtained and, inasmuch as, it had not been obtained, the whole proceedings were vitiated. This question had already been referred for consideration by a larger Bench in Criminal Revision No 104 of 1986, Mehar Chand v. State. The case, therefore, was directed to be heard alongwith that revision petition.

4. In Criminal Revision No. 104 of 1986, Mehar Chand v. State, the facts are these :

5. The Government Food Inspector visited the business premises of petitioner Mehar Chand, who was running a Karyana shop, on October 26, 1982 and purchased a sample of hard boiled sugar confectionery from Mehar Chand, who had 5 kgs. thereof in his possession. Out of the 900 gms. of hard boiled sugar confectionery purchased by the Food Inspector, three samples were prepared. On analysis by the Public Analyst, the sample was found to contain an orange coal tar-dye, other than the prescribed one, rendering the sample to be adulterated. The petitioner was prosecuted. He requested that the opinion of the Director, Central Food Laboratory be also obtained. Second part of the sample was sent to the Director. The report of the Director showed that the sample was adulterated, though for different reasons. The Director found that it contained ash insoluble in dilute Hcl more than the maximum prescribed limit. It also contained mineral oil.

6. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, who tried the case, convicted Mehar Chand for an offence under section 16 (1-A) (i) of the Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. This was by an order of May 20, 1985.

7. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, set aside the conviction of Mehar Chand by his judgment dated September 26, 1986. He remanded the case with the direction to frame fresh charge against Mehar Chand and to hold trial in accordance with law- In the opinion of the learned Judge, it had become necessary to do so because Mehar Chand had been charged for the offence under section 16 (1) (a) after the receipt of the report from the Public Analyst, yet he had been convicted for an offence un