JUDGMENT : V. Gopalaswamy, J. - The facts giving rise to this revision may be briefly stated as follows: On 16-5-1981 cognizance was taken against the Petitioner firm and others u/s 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and on summons being issued against them they entered appearance before the trial court. Subsequently P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and the case was posted to 23-7-1983 for consideration of the charge. On that date the learned C.J.M. while framing charges against the other accused persons, discharged the present Petitioner solely on the ground that no sanction was accorded by the C.D.M.O. for his prosecution. Subsequently on a petition filed by the A.P.P., the learned successor C.J.M. again considered the sanction order and interpreting that the expression "vendor and partners of the grocery Firm" in the sanction order includes the Petitioner firm as well by his order dated 29-8-1985. framed charge against it u/s 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said order framing charge against it, the Petitioner firm has preferred this revision. 2. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the sanction order is quoted below: ....I,...hereby accord written consent for taking legal action against the vendor and partners of the grocery Firm M/s Balaram Das of Remuna.... Admittedly after the earlier order of discharge was passed by the C.J.M. on 23-7-1983, no fresh material of consequence was brought to the record against the Petitioner. However, the successor C.J.M. on his own interpretation of the sanction order, holding that the expression "vendor and partners of the grocery Firm" includes the Petitioner, found that there was sanction, for prosecuting the Petitioner as well. So the point for decision in this revision petition is whether the expression "the vender and partners of the grocery Firm" includes the Petitioner as well. 3. The C.D.M.O. who is the sanctioning authority u/s 20 of the Act for initiating prosecutions u/s 16 of the Act is presumed to be acquainted with the expressions used in the Act. Section 14 of the Act provides: 14. 3. The C.D.M.O. who is the sanctioning authority u/s 20 of the Act for initiating prosecutions u/s 16 of the Act is presumed to be acquainted with the expressions used in the Act. Section 14 of the Act provides: 14. Manufacturers, distributors, and dealers to give warranty.-No manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in, any article of food shall sell such article to any vendor unless he also gives a warranty in writing in the prescribed form about the nature and quality of such article to the vendor: Provided that a bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in such article to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer, distributor or dealer under this section. Explanation.- In this section in Sub-section (2) of Section 19 and in Section 20-A, the expression 'distributor' shall include a commission agent to the relevant portion of Section 19 of the Act is quoted below: 19. Defence which mayor may not be allowed in prosecution under this Act: xx xx xx (2) A vender shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves. (a) that he purchased the article of food (i) in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof, from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer; (ii) in any other case, from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form; and (b) that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it. xx xx xx From the above quoted provisions of Sections 14 and 19 of the Act it is clear that the expression "vendor" is used in the Act to connote someone other than the manufacturer, distributor or dealer. xx xx xx From the above quoted provisions of Sections 14 and 19 of the Act it is clear that the expression "vendor" is used in the Act to connote someone other than the manufacturer, distributor or dealer. The view that under the Act the "vendor" does not belong to the same category of persons as that of a manufacturer or distributor or dealer receives support from the decision D. Mitra v. State of Bihar 1987 Cri.L.J. 657 In this case, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is a 'distributor' of the article of food in question within the meaning of the Act and the same is not disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate. Hence I hold that the expression "vendor" and partners of the grocery Firm "does not include the Petitioner firm as well, as it is admittedly a "distributor", but it merely refers to the person - whoever vends the article of food in question. on behalf of the firm M/s. Balaram Das. So, it leaves no room for doubt that the C.D.M.O. has not accorded the necessary sanction for prosecuting the Petitioner. Hence the trial court acted illegally in framing the charge against the Petitioner taking the view that there was sanction for prosecuting the Petitioner. As the C.J.M. had framed the charge against the Petitioner on an erroneous basis, the charge so framed against the Petitioner is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, that part of the impugned order framing the charge against the Petitioner is hereby quashed. As the C.D.M.O. has not accorded sanction for prosecuting the Petitioner the order passed earlier by the trial court taking cognizance against the Petitioner u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act is also hereby quashed. However, it is open to the learned C.J.M. at any stage of the trial to issue summons against the Petitioner making him a co-accused in the case and proceed against him u/s 20-A of the Act in case on a consideration of the material available before him he finds that adopting such a course is necessary in the interests of justice. Accordingly the revision petition is allowed. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed