IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2003. Date of decision: 24th August, 2009 Madan lal ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P ..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? For the petitioner: Ms.Shweta Julka, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) A short question is involved in this Criminal Revision Petition. The petitioner herein was convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 16(1-A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. The facts necessary for the decision of the case are that on 8th June, 1997 a sample of ‘Kale Channe’ was taken from the Halwai shop of the petitioner. This sample was divided into three portions and one of the 2 portions was sent to the Public Analyst after wrapping it in accordance with the provisions of law. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was infested with living and dead insects to the extent of 17.6% against the maximum prescribed standard of 10% and, therefore, opined that the sample was adulterated. The accused was convicted by the learned Trial Court. In the appeal filed by the accused, the only point raised was that the accused had not kept ‘Kale Channe’ for sale but for distribution to monkeys. This argument did not find favour with the learned Lower Appellate Court and the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. The only ground raised by Ms.Shweta Julka, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire prosecution is vitiated on account of the fact that no sanction of the competent authority was taken under Section 20 of the Act before launching the prosecution. This point was also raised before the learned Trial Court and was rejected only on the ground that the Food Inspector had stated on oath that he was duly authorized by a notification issued by the H.P Government under Section 20 of the Act to launch the prosecution. It would be pertinent to mention here that the notification in 3 favour of the Food Inspector was never placed on record. No doubt judicial notice can be taken on a notification meaning thereby that the requirement of proving the same in accordance with the rules of evidence is dispensed with but if the prosecution wants to rely upon some notification, it must place the same on record before the Court concerned. Even otherwise I find that the Food Inspector only said that he was entitled to launch the prosecution. There is a lot of difference between the power to sanction a prosecution and the power to launch a prosecution. This Court can take judicial notice on the fact that in the State of Himachal Pradesh, it is the Chief Judicial Magistrates/Health Officers who have been vested with the powers under Section 20 of the Act to sanction the launching of the prosecution. The sanction of launching of the prosecution is not an empty formality. Reference may be made to the judgments of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gauri Shankar 1989 Volume 1 SLC 307 and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Noor Din, 1989(2) SLC, 7, wherein it has been held that the prosecution is bound to prove the sanction. This case is totally covered by the aforesaid two judgments. In the present case also 4 neither the sanction has been placed on record nor there is any material on record to show that the Health Officer granted sanction before launching the prosecution. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment of the learned Trial Court convicting the accused as affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court is set aside. The petitioner is acquitted. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. The fine, if already paid, is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner. August 24, 2009 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge