JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Aganlal and Mohd. Farooq have filed this application against the judgment and order dated 20-7-1974 passed by the First Class Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, confirming their conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of six months' S.I, awarded thereunder, 2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 14-11-1973 at about 3-45 p.m. Nain Singb, Inspector, checked the Kariana shop of Mobd. Farooq revisionist situated in Pukhtar Bazar Jehangirabad in the presence of certain witnesses and purchased 450 grams of Haldi Powder from Aganlal accused who was present at the shop and was working as a servant/salesman of Mohd. Farooq. it was divided into three parts and was kept in three separate phials one of which was delivered to Agan Lal. The other one was sent to the Public Analyst who found it to be adulterated being coloured with lead chromate use of which is prohibited by law. On the receipt of the report and after obtaining sanction of the District Medical Officer of Health a complaint was filed against both the revisionists. The revisionists denied the said charge. Mohd. Farooq admitted that the Kerana shop which was inspected by the inspector belongs to him but he pleaded ignorance about the taking sample of Haldi. He also denied that Agan Lal is his salesman or servant. Agan Lal also denied this fact as well as that he had sold any sample of Haldi powder to the Food Inspector. He, however, admitted his signatures on the receipt etc. None of them assigned any reason for their implication in this case except that Agan Lal had some scuffle with Bhedi Ram and he got them implicated in this case. In support of its contention the prosecution had examined Nain Singh and Bhedi Ram as witnesses. The revisionist did not examine any witness. 3. After going through the evidence on the record both the learned lower courts came to the conclusion that Mohd. Farooq was the owner of the Kerana shop and Agan Lal was his servant discharging the functions of a salesman at the said shop. They also held that the Food Inspector had taken sample of the powder of haldi from this shop and it was found to be adulterated. Hence they convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Farooq was the owner of the Kerana shop and Agan Lal was his servant discharging the functions of a salesman at the said shop. They also held that the Food Inspector had taken sample of the powder of haldi from this shop and it was found to be adulterated. Hence they convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the learned lower courts have already discussed the entire evidence adduced in this case and have come to the conclusion that Mohd. Farooq is owner of the Kerana shop situated in Jehangirabad and Agan Lal is servant-cum-salesman. They have also discussed the evidence and come to the conclusion that sample of powder of Haldi was collected from the shop and it was found to be adulterated. The Public Analyst's report clearly proves that Haldi was adulterated. I have not been referred to any such illegality or infirmity which may render the conclusions reached by the learned lower courts, in any manner, wrong. As held in the case of Nagar Mahapalika, Agra v. Girraj, 1969 A.W.R. 665, both master and servant are in such cases liable. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionists has, however, seriously challenged the validity of the sanction accorded in this case as the sanction is on a printed form all the columns of which were filled up by the Food Inspector. There is not a word in the handwriting of the District Medical Officer of Health. He simply affixed his signature at the bottom in a different ink. The District Medical Officer of Health was not examined in this case to prove that he had gone through all the relevant papers before according his sanction. Even the Food Inspector did not give out in his statement that he had placed all the papers before the District Medical Officer of Health at the time of according sanction and the latter had applied his mind to the same. In these circumstances the sanction could not be held to be valid. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Kishan Lal v. State 1978 (II) FAC 130 in which it has been held that blank columns of printed form should normally be filled in by the Medical Officer of Health himself unless for adequate reasons it cannot be done. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Kishan Lal v. State 1978 (II) FAC 130 in which it has been held that blank columns of printed form should normally be filled in by the Medical Officer of Health himself unless for adequate reasons it cannot be done. If the details in the form filled in are is one type of ink whereas signatures of sanctioning authority are in another type of in ink such circumstance creates reasonable doubt whether sanctioning authority had at all applied bis mind. It is the duty of the prosecution to produce Medical Officer of Health to explain doubts and infirmities arising therein. Where it is not done the sanction cannot be held to be valid. Applying this principle the sanction relied upon in this case cannot be said to be valid and the revisionists' conviction is liable to be set aside on that score. 5. The revision application is allowed and the revisionists's conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence awarded thereunder are set aside. He is 00 bail and need not surrender. The bonds furnished by him are cancelled.