Summarize the following court judgment. Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 1980. From the Judgment and Order dated 1.5.1979 of the Orissa High Court in Government Appeal No. 38 of 1977. Raj Kumar Mehta for the Appellant. S.G. Sambandhan for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY	 J. The respoudent was found to have sold adulterated cumin (Jira) on March 13	 1976 punishable under s.16(1)(a)(i) read with s.7(1) of the 	 for short 'the Act '. Both the courts found as a fact that the adulterated cumin was 254 exposed for sale and PW 1	 the Food Inspector	 purchased the cumin (Jira) under the provisions of the Act and on analysis by the Public Analyst it was found that it contained 9% foreign seeds as against permissible 7.0%; inorganic (dust	 stones	 lumps of earth etc.) 0.2% and organic (chaff	 sterm	 stipules	 etc.) at 1.8%. Accordingly it was found to have been adulterated. The Magistrate and the High Court acquit ted the respondent on the sole ground that his father Appa Rao was the owner of the shop. Had that fact been brought to the notice of the sanctioning authority under s.20 of the Act	 it would not have permitted to prosecute the respond ent	 the son of the owner. Accordingly placing reliance on Jagan Nath Sahu vs Food Inspector	 Jaipur Municipality (1973) 2 Cuttack Weekly Reporter 1556 acquitted the accused and was confirmed by the High Court. The sole question that emerges for consideration is whether it is necessary that the respondent should be the owner of the shop for being prosecuted for the offences under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with s.7(1) of the Act. Sub sec tion (1) of s.20 of the Act reads thus: "(1) No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by	 or with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf	 by general or special order	 by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority". Proviso is not necessary. Hence omitted. Section 2 of the Act defines 'adulterated ' that if the articles sold by a vendor is not of the nature	 substance or quality demanded by the purchaser	 who is to purchase	 the article is adulterated. If the quality or variety of the articles fail below the prescribed standard or its constitu ents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability	 is also adulterated. It would	 there fore	 be clear that the word 'adulterated ' was used widely. If the food or article of food is adulterated	 if it is not of the nature	 substance or quality demanded by the purchas er and sold by the seller and is to his prejudice 	 or contains any foreign substance in excess of its prescribed limit	 so as to effect injuriously	 the nature	 substance or quality thereof. In view of the finding of the courts below that cumin (Jira) was adulterated it is a sale by the vendor to the purchaser in terms of the provisions of the Act. What s.20 envisages is that no prosecution for an offence under the Act should be instituted except by or by the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or a person otherwise authorised in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government or the State Government or a 255 local authority. Therefore	 grant of sanction to prosecute for an offence under the Act is a condition precedent. The relevant criteria under s.20(1) is the competence of the Officer to grant the sanction for the offence. It does not postulate whether the person sold should be the owner or a servant or a person on behalf of the owner (son of the owner). Section 7 prohibits manufacture	 sale of certain articles of food. No 'person ' shall himself or any person on his behalf manufacture for sale	 or store or sell or dis tribute (i) any adulterated food etc. The phrase "himself or any person on his behalf ' obviously included any other person like servant	 son	 father	 or agent irrespective of the relationship legal or jural etc. The person so sold during the course of business either the owner or the person that sold the adulterated food or article of food or both are liable to prosecution. It is not in dispute that the officer that granted the sanction in this case is the competent officer as a delegate on behalf of the local authority. Undoubtedly	 a valid sanction is a condition precedent. If no valid sanction was granted by the authority	 certainly the accused is entitled to the benefit of statutory infraction	 though it is techni cal and be acquitted of the offence. In Sarjoo Prasad vs The State of U.P.	 [1961] 3SCR 324	 it was contended that a servant who sold food on behalf of his employer was not liable unless it was known that he has done it with knowledge that the food was adulterated. This court held that s.7 of the Act enjoins everyone whether an employer or a servant not to sell adulterated food and anyone who contravenes this provision is punishable under section 16 without proof of mensrea. This court repelled the argu ment that the legislature could not have intended	 having regard to the fact that large majority of servants in the shops which deal in food are illiterate to penalise servants who are not aware of the true nature of the article sold. The intention of the legislature must be gathered from the words used in the statute and not by any assumption about the capacity of the offenders to appreciate the gravity of the acts done by them. There is also no warrant for the assumption that the servants employed in shops dealing in food stuff are generally illiterate. In the interest of the public health	 the Act was enacted prohibiting all persons from selling adulterated food. In the absence of any provi sion	 express or necessarily implied from the context	 the courts will not be justified in holding that the prohibition was only to apply to the owner of the shop and not to the agent of the owner who sells adulterated food. This view was reiterated in Ibrahim Haji Moideen & Anr. vs Food Inspector ' & Anr.	 (1976) 2 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 66. This court held that for the purpose of conviction under charge on which A 2 was tried. it was immaterial whether he was an agent or a partner of 256 A 1. Once it is proved that he sold the adulterated arti cles	 he was liable to be convicted under section 16(1) read with s.7 of the Act. The contention that it is only the owner of the shop that could be convicted was held to be wholly an unsustainable contention. The Act is a welfare legislation to prevent health hazards by consuming adulterated food. The mensrea is not an essential ingredient. It is a social evil and the Act pro hibits commission of the offences under the Act. The essen tial ingredient is sale to the purchaser by the vendor. It is not material to establish the capacity of the person vis a vis the owner of the shop to prove his authority to sell the adulterated food exposed for sale in the shop. It is enough for the prosecution to establish that the person who sold the adulterated article of food had sold it to the purchaser (including the Food Inspector) and that Food Inspector purchased the same in strict compliance with the provisions of the Act. As stated earlier the sanctioning authority has to consider the material place before it whether the offence of adulteration of food was committed and punishable under the Act. Once that satisfaction is reached and the authority is competent to grant the sanc tion	 the sanction is valid. It is not necessary for the sanctioning authority to consider that the person sold is the owner	 servant	 agent or partner or relative of the owner or was duly authorised in this behalf. We have	 therefore	 no hesitation to hold that the courts below committed manifest error of law causing miscar riage of justice in holding that the sanctioning authority must be apprised of the status of the person that sold the adulterated food article to the Food Inspector or the pur chaser. Consequently	 the acquittal is set aside and the respondent is held liable to be conviction and accordingly convicted under s.16(1)(a)(i) read with s.7(1) of the Act. But what is the sentence to be imposed? The offence had occurred on March 13	1976 before the Amending Act has come into force. Under the unamended Act it was not mandatory to impose the minimum sentence. For reasons to be recorded the Magistrate may impose the sentence	 fine or both for the first offence and it was mandatory to impose minimum sen tence for second or subsequent offences. As stated	 15 years have passed by from the date of the offence and at this distance of time the ends of justice may not serve to send the respondent to imprisonment. Suffice that he has undergone	 all these years	 the agony of the prosecution. But	 however	 the sentence of fine of a sum of Rs. 500 is imposed upon the respondent and he shall pay the same. In default he shall undergo the imprisonment for a period of one month. The appeal is accordingly allowed. V.P.R. Appeal allowed.

On 13.3.1976	 it was found that the respondent sold adulterated cumin(Jira). The Food Inspector purchased the Jira under the provisions of the Act and on analysis the Public Analyst found that it was adulterated. The respondent was charged u/s.16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(1) of the . The Trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that his father was the owner of the shop and assuming that if that fact had been brought to the notice of the sanction ing authority section 20 of the Act	 it would not have permit ted to prosecute the respondent	 the son of the owner of the shop and relying on the Jagannath Sahu 's 252 case (1973)(2) Cuttack Weekly Reporter	 1536. The High Court on appeal confirmed the acquittal order of the trial court. On the question	 whether it was necessary that the respondent should be the owner of the shop for being prose cuted for the offences section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(1) of the Act	 allowing the appeal filed by the State	 this Court	 HELD: 1. The Act is a welfare legislation to prevent health hazards by consuming adulterated food. The mens tea is not an essential ingredient. It is a social evil and the Act prohibits commission of the offences under the Act. The essential ingredient is sale to the purchaser by the vendor. It is not material to establish the capacity of the person vis a vis the owner of the shop to prove his authority to sell the adulterated food exposed for sale in the shop. It is enough for the prosecution to establish that the person	 who sold the adulterated article of food had sold it to the purchaser (including the Food Inspector ) and that Food Inspector purchased the same in strict compliance with the provisions of the Act. [256 BC] 2. The sanctioning authority has to consider the mate rial placed before it whether the offence of adulteration of food was committed and punishable under the Act. Once that satisfaction is reached and the authority is competent to grant the sanction	 the sanction is valid. It is not neces sary for the sanctioning authority to consider that the person sold is the owner	 servant	 agent or partner or relative of the owner or was duly authorised in this behalf. [256 C D] 3. Grant of sanction to prosecute for an offence under the Act is a condition precedent. If no valid sanction was granted by the authority	 certainly the accused is entitled to the benefit of statutory infraction	 though it is techni cal and be acquitted of the offence. The relevant criteria under section 20(1) is the competence of the officer to grant the sanction for the offence. it does not postulate whether the person sold should be the owner or a servant or a person on behalf of the owner (son of the owner). [255 A] 4. No 'person ' shall himself or any person on his behalf manufacture for sale	 or store or sell or distribute any adulterated food etc. The phrase "himself or any person on his behalf" obviously included any other person like servant	 son	 father or agent irre 253 spective of the relationship legal or jural etc. The person so sold during the course of business either the owner or the person that sold the adulterated food or article of food or both are liable to prosecution. [255 B C] 5. If the article sold by a vendor is not of the na ture	 substance or quality demanded by the purchaser	 who is to purchase	 the article is adulterated. If the quality or variety of the article fall below the prescribed standard of its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability	 is also adulterated. The food or article of food is adulterated	 if it is not of the nature	 substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and sold by the seller and is to his prejudice	 or contains any foreign substance in excess of its prescribed limit	 so as to effect injuriously	 the nature	 substance or quality thereof. The word 'adulterated ' was used widely. [254 F] 6. As 15 years have passed by from the date of the offence	 the ends of justice may not serve to send the respondent to imprisonment. Suffice that he bas undergone	 all these years	 the agony of the prosecution. In the cir cumstances a sentence of fine of a sum of Rs.500 is imposed	 in default the imprisonment for a period of one month. [256 G] Jagannath Sahu vs Food Inspector	 Jaipur Municipality	 1973(2) Cuttack Weekly Reporter 1556	 overruled. Sarjoo Prasad vs The State of U.P.	 [1961] 3 S.C.R. 324; Ibrahim Haji Moideen & Anr. vs Food Inspector & Ant.	 1976 (2) All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 66	 referred to.