Mohd. Ashan and anr. Vs. Delhi Administration - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/708258
SubjectCriminal;Food Adulteration
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnFeb-09-2001
Case NumberCrl. Revision No. 49 of 1987
Judge R.S. Sodhi, J.
Reported in91(2001)DLT169; 2001(58)DRJ265
ActsPrevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 7, 16 and 20
AppellantMohd. Ashan and anr.
RespondentDelhi Administration
Appellant Advocate Jayant Sud, Adv
Respondent AdvocateNone
DispositionRevision allowed
Cases ReferredHarjit Singh v. State
Excerpt:
the case focused on the determination of sanction order under sections 20, 7 & 16 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954, which was made without application of mind - it was observed that application of mind was necessity in granting sanction to prosecute as it was an important matter - it was found that according to the procedure to be applied, except the date of taking sample and the name of the food inspector, the remaining were in the cyclostyled proforma - hence it was found that the grant of sanction order was in a mechanical manner - it was ruled that the revision was to be allowed - - the only ground taken before me by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the sanction under section 20 of the act is bad for reasons that sanction order was without application.....r.s. sodhi, j.1. criminal revisional no. 49/97 is directed against the order of the learned additional sessions judge, delhi dated 4.3.1987 holding the petitioners guilty under section 7/16 of the prevention of food adulteration act. the only ground taken before me by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the sanction under section 20 of the act is bad for reasons that sanction order was without application of mind.2. he has drawn my attention to various judgments in nand kishore and anr. v. state (delhi administration), 1991 fac 220; 44(1999) dlt 247 the learned single judge of this court while disposing of revision petition on the same grounds held that the sanction was not valid for the reason that except for filling in the name of food inspector, who had taken the sample, the.....
Judgment:

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. Criminal Revisional No. 49/97 is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 4.3.1987 holding the petitioners guilty under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The only ground taken before me by learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the sanction under Section 20 of the Act is bad for reasons that sanction Order was without application of mind.

2. He has drawn my attention to various judgments in Nand Kishore and Anr. v. State (Delhi Administration), 1991 FAC 220; 44(1999) DLT 247 the learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of revision petition on the same grounds held that the Sanction was not valid for the reason that except for filling in the name of Food Inspector, who had taken the sample, the date of taking the sample, and the name of the accused, the rest of the proforma was merely a cyclostyled proforma. thereforee, on perusal of the sanction order the learned Judge held that there was lack of application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority.

3. He has drawn my attention to the judgment in Harjit Singh v. State, 1998 FAC 370, where another learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of a criminal revision has held that except for filling in the proforma such as name of the accused, the same of what commodity, the name of the Food Inspector and under what provisions the accused has been prosecuted, nothing more is mentioned. It becomes abundantly clear from perusal of the sanctioning order that the sanction was granted in a mechanical manner and without any serious application of mind and because sanction to prosecute is an important matter, it is necessary that authority granting sanction much apply its mind.

4. He has produced one order of sanction. From a perusal of the same it appears that except for filling in the blanks regarding sample taken and the date on which the sample was taken as also the name of the Food Inspector, rest is made in a cyclostyled proforma. A bare reading of the same does not give any indication that the Sanctioning Authority has applied its mind to the offence that had been committed and/or the export of finding in the report.

5. In this view of the matter, I hold that the sanction order is bad to non-application of mind. Criminal Revision No. 49/87 of the learned Additional Session Judge is set aside. Fine deposited, if any, be returned.

6. Revision allowed.