JUDGMENT
M.B. Sharma, J.
1. As shall be presently ahown that the written consent Ex. P.8 Under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short P.F. Act) cannot be said to be in accordance with law and, therefore, no cognizence of the offence Under Section 7/16 of the P.F. Act could have taken by the learned court and the revision petition, therefore, on such point only deserves to be allowed.
2. Shri Hari Dutt Sharma was the Food Inspector on 23rd October 1978. The accused petitioner has a Kirana shop near Jamamaszid Bharatpur and the food inspector went to the shop of the accused petitioner and purchased ‘Heeng’ for the purpose of analysis as he suspected the same to be adulterated. The sample was purchased and it was divided into three equel parts and each part was filled in three clean dry phials and each sample was corcked, srapped and sealed. One sample was given by hand by the food inspector to the Chief Public Analyst and it reached in his office on 24th October 1978. The seal fixed on the container of the sample tallied with specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the food inspector and the sample was in a condition fit for analysis. The Chief Public Analyst found that the sample of Heeng was adulterted as it does not conform to the prescribed standard of purety. The food inspector after taking the written consent of the local authorities filed a complaint. During the trial of the case, the defence of the accused petitioner was that the sample of ‘heeng’ was taken from his possession but it was only meant for killing insects and was not meant for human consumption. The accused petitioner also come out with a plea that he was denied of his right for second analysis of the second sample by the Director Central Food laboratory. The accused petitioner did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as aforesaid and the appeal too was dismissed.
3. Reverting to the question which has been referred to in the earlier part of this judgment, I am of the opinion that it will be proper to read the sanction Under Section 20 of the P.F. Act. It reads as under:
Dr. S.P. Johari Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bharatpur in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by Government of Rajasthan (Medical and Public Health Deptt) Notification No. F. 5. (24) MPH/74/Group-1, dated 23-9-1978 and amendment of. F. 8(24) Med/Health/74, dt. 24-1-1979 published in Rajasthan Gazette dated 8-2-1979 page No. 394 Part 4(GA), read with Section 20 (Sub-section (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act do hereby accord my consent for prosecution of Shri Babulal s/o Gaya Prasad Pansari, above named for an offence Under Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
4. A perusal of the above extracted written consent Under Section 20 of the P.F. Act will show that it is in a printed form and only the blanks have been filled in. Even the signatures of the local authority is in different ink then the date of the aforesaid written consent. There is no date below the signature. It also appears to the naked eye that the blanks have been filled in by somebody else and not by the local authority. All that has been stated in the aforesaid written consent is that the local authority has perused the report of the Food Inspector and the other record relevant thereof but it is not mentioned as to what record has been seen by it. It does not appear from Ex. P.7, the report of the Food Inspector to the local authority that along with the aforesaid report a receipt in Form No. VI for the amount paid for the purchase of sample of ‘Heeng’ was enclosed. But surprisingly Ex. P.7 bears no date, there is no endorsement of the local authority and it cannot be said that the local authority has had an occasion to go through it. Generally if any papers are placed and more so the report of the Food Inspector, then there is some endorsement of the local authority if the same is presented before him and there is also mention that the same has been perused. It is well settled that giving written consent is not a mere ritual and the authority giving written consent for the prosecution Under Section 7/16 of the P.F. Act must apply his mind. It will also appear from the written consent that it cannot be said as to under which Section the written consent has been given.
5. Consequently, I am satisfied that the written consent Under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is not in accordance with law and the learned court below could not have taken cognizance of the offence. I hereby allow this revision petition, setaside the judgment dated 20th June 1986 of the learned appellate court as well as dated 23rd December 1981 of the learned trial court. The accused petitioner is acquitted of the charge Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The conviction and sentence of the secused petitioner are set aside. The accused petitioner is on bail and he need not to surrender to the bail bonds which shall stand discharged. If the fine is deposited by the accused petitioner, the same shall be refunded to him on his application.