IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Rev. No. 58 of 2000. Date of Decision: 1.9.2010.. _______________________________________________ Onkar Chand and another. ….petitioners. Versus. State of H.P. and another. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant :Mr.T.R.Sharma,Advocate. For Respondent. :Mr.P.K.Sharma,Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner has been convicted for offences under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has been sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-. 2. Before adverting to the facts involved in this case, the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 6th August, 2010, the Court has decided the point as to whether Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,1955 have been complied with or not. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 3. The following questions were referred to the Division Bench of this Court on 4th August, 2003 for consideration. “Whether a sample purchased by a Food Inspector of a food such as Haldi and sealed in polythene bag can be said to have been put and sealed in a suitable container within the meaning of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955”. 4. After considering the entire case law before it, the Court holds: “11 The question is accordingly answered by holding that the polythene bag can be said to be a suitable container within the meaning of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.” 5. In view of this finding, the submission that there has been a violation of Rule 14, cannot be considered and this contention I as urged is rejected. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges two points (i) that the report of the public analyst Ext.P-9 is not in conformity with the Rules and that the sanction Ext.P-12 is no sanction in the eyes of law. 7. Adverting to the first point, the learned counsel relies upon a decision of this Court in State of H.P. Vs. Noor Din, 1989 F.A.J.,268, to urge that where the public analyst has given the narration of the analysis only and no opinion has been recorded by him with respect to the nature of the sample, as to whether it is in the report of the Public Analyst cannot be relied upon. 8. Considering the report in its totality, what I find is that the Public Analyst records in his report that the sample of 3 ‘Haldi’ which was seized, contains 11.5 % ashes against the minimum prescribed limit of 9% and ash insoluble in dilute Hcl. was 4.4% as against the maximum prescribed limit of 1.5%. I also find in the report that some addition has been made with respect to the address etc. in writing which has not been initial by anybody nor it has been proved as to who was the person making additions in the report. 9. Learned counsel contends that the report of analysis is incomplete and it has not been stated by the Public Analyst as to whether it violates any provision of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act or whether the sample is adulterated within the meaning of the ‘Act’. Accepting this contention which shall be playing a highly restricted meaning on adultration as defined by the Act. This factor by itself may not be sufficient by itself for acquittal. However when Ext.P- 12 is considered I find that the sanction has not been proved in accordance with law. It is form in which blanks have been filled and not proved by the Local Health Authority with respect to the vital aspect of application of mind. 10. Learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the evidence of Food Inspector Sh. G.R.Puri (PW2) is replete with details that is to say that it was filled in the hand of Local Health Authority and bears his signature. I cannot accept this submission. The law requires application of mind before sanction is granted. For this purpose all that is required is that the person or the authority granting sanction should appear as a witness and state that it was granted after a 4 perusal of the material submitted to him to which the person/authority applied his mind. There is no such evidence on record. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon two judgments of this Court in State of H.P. Vs. Purshotam Dass, 1997 (1)F.A.C. 215 and Vahid Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1997(1) F.A.C. 226 where this Court holds that unless a valid sanction in accordance with law is proved, there can be no conviction in law. I am in respectful in agreement with this precedent. 12. This revision petition is accordingly accepted. The judgments of courts below are quashed and set aside. The petitioners are acquitted of the offences as charged. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioners shall stand discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge. September 1,2010(R)