APEAL.7-01 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7 OF 2001 Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation through Mr. P. S. Chavan, Food Inspector ...Appellant Vs. Padamsing Hanumansing Rajpurohit & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. Deepak More, for the Appellant. Mr. Ujwal A. Surve, for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 6, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned APP. This appeal is filed against the order of acquittal passed by the J.M.F.C. Pimpri dated 11th April, 2000. By the said judgment and order, the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7(i), 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(j) and S. 7(v) read with Rule 29 and Section APEAL.7-01 - 2 - 7(iii) read with Rule 50 punishable under S. 16 and Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. It was alleged that accused No.2 was the proprietor of M/s. Kanhaiyya Sweets, Sangavi, Pune and accused No.1 was the salesman, working in the said shop. The allegation was that the synthetic colour used in preparing ‘Khaman-Dhokla’ was not in accordance with the standards laid down under the Act. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, acquitted the accused on three grounds. The first ground was that the sanction which was granted under S. 20 of the Act was granted without any application of mind; secondly, no reasons have been stated while granting sanction, and as such, there was breach of mandatory provisions of Section 20 of the said Act. It was submitted that accused No.2 was the proprietor of the Sweets shop. However, he was not served with the summons. Thirdly, it was held that the panch witness examined by the prosecution, was not an independent witness, since the said panch was a rival shop keeper having sweets shop in the same locality and as such no reliance can be placed on the evidence of said panch witness and seizure of goods. 3. I have perused the record. In my view, there is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the trial Court. The Apex Court in number of APEAL.7-01 - 3 - cases has held that while granting sanction, the sanctioning authority should apply its mind and should not grant sanction in the mechanical manner. In the present case, no reasons have been given by the sanctioning authority while granting sanction, and therefore, the order granting sanction is patently illegal. Secondly, admitted position is that notice under S. 11 was not served on accused No.2, who was proprietor of the shop. Under the circumstances, therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]