- (1.)THE applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the P. F. Act and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - by the trial court. In appeal his conviction was maintained and also the sentence of fine. Hence this revision.
(2.)I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order. I have also closely examined the record of the case. A sample of milk is alleged to have been purchased from the applicant on 23. 12. 1971 at 9 a. m by the Food Inspector, which, on analysis, was found to be adulterated. After obtaining sanction the applicant was prosecuted. It appears that the prosecu tion failed and the accused was dis charged because of a defective sanction. Thereafter a fresh complaint was filed on 15th November 1974 after obtaining the requisite sanction. On this basis the applicant has been prosecuted and con victed as above.
(3.)THE applicants counsel has submitted that the sanction accorded in the instant case is no sanction in the eyes of law. There is nothing on the record to indi cate that the sanctioning authority has applied his mind to the facts of the case before according his consent. In this connection, it will be pertinent to refer to the order granting sanction (Ext. Ka -6 dated 6. 12. 1974) which runs as fol lows : -
"office of the District Medical Officer of Health, Basti No. P. F. A. /74 -75 Dated 6. 12. 1974 All the District Medical Officers of Health U. P. are authorised to sanc tion prosecution under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (1954) by the U. P. State Government vide Notification No. 10305/xvi (P. H.) 461 -52 dated 16. 12. 1955 published in U. P. Gazette dated 24. 12. 1955 Part 1 on page No. 1848.

I, therefore, under the aforesaid Notification give my written consent to Food Inspector B. B. Singh to institute the prosecution, against Buddhoo Son of Ram Tehal Murao, R/o Kalwari P. S. Kalwari District Basti under Sec, 7 (1) (iii)/16 (c) (i), C (ii) of P. F. Act 1954 for the offences mentioned in the complaint of the Food Inspector B. B. Singh.

Sd/ -. . . . . .

District Medical Officer of Health Basti 6. 12. 19/4"
3 On the face of it, this order granting sanction appears to show that by virtue of the powers vested in the District Medical Officers of Health under the Government Notification mentioned in the order, he has sanctioned prosecution. There is nothing in the order itself to indicate that the mind of the sanctioning authority has been applied to the facts of the case, It is significant to note in this very connection that Ex Ka -5, which is a copy of the complaint, is a printed form. It may be presumed for a moment that this complaint was sent to the Dis trict Medical Officer of Health, Basti for obtaining his sanction, At the bottom of this complaint there is another signifi cant paragraph which has been printed to indicate that the District Medical Officer of Health, Basti has perused the report of the Food Inspector and that of the Public Analyst, on the basis whereof, he was convinced that it was a fit case for granting sanction. Significantly enough this endorsement has been scored out. Thus no advantage can be derived by the prosecution on the basis of the above printed endorsement. I have closely scrutinised the statement of the Food Inspector also. He has no where stated the relevant papers in connection with the offence in question were for warded to the District Medical Officer of Health, Basti for obtaining his sanction. The Court cannot be left guessing as to what actually was done by the authorities concerned in order to determine whether the sanction accorded was valid or not. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to produce convincing and satisfactory evidence to indicate that the sanctioning authority did apply his mind to the fact of the case. In the present case, there no such indication, either from the statement of the Food Inspector or from the documentary evidence filed on the record.
To my mind, it is clear that the District Medical Officer of Health, Basti was quite satisfied that he had been vested with power to grant sanction on the basis of Government Notification and, therefore, he gave written consent for prosecution without the slightest application of his mind. In these circum stances, I would not hesitate to observe that the sanction granted was mechanical and did not fulfil the requirements of law.