JUDGMENT S.I. JAFRI, J. 1. DHARAMVIR applicant has preferred this revision against his conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentences of six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The applicant DHARAMVIR was tried on the charge under Section 7/16 of the Act in the Court of Sri Subhash Chand, Special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar who convicted the applicant under Section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo six months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- by his judgment and order dated 1-11-81. Aggrived by the aforesaid judgment and order the applicant filed appeal in the court of Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar but the same was dismissed by Sri M. H. Khan IV Additional Sessions Judge Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 172/81 by his judgment and order dated 5-12-81. As stated above the present application was preferred against the orders of the Courts below. 2. THE facts of the case are that PW 1 Dhanwan Singh, Food Inspector took sample of milk from the applicant at about 8.15 A. M. on 30-5-1978 on G. T. Road near Town of Khatoli, P. S. Khatoli, District Muzaffarnagar. THE applicant was carrying buffalo milk for sale. THE Food Inspector purchased 660 ml. milk for analysis from the applicant and he divided the milk in three phials and sealed the phials on the spot. One of them was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. It was found by the Public Analyst vide his report that the milk was deficient in fat contents by 28% and in non-fatty solids by about 9% and, therefore, the sample was found to be adulterated. The Food Inspector, after obtaining sanction from the Prescribed Authority, filed the complaint against the abovenamed accused in the Court of the Magistrate. The applicant admitted the purchase of 660 Ml. of milk from him by the Food Inspector. He also admitted his signature on the receipt but be added that he did not carry business of selling milk and he was taking the milk for his sister. The prosecution examined Food Inspector Bhanwar Singh PW 1 and Sher Singh PW 2 in support of its case. The applicant examined Sudhir DW 1 in his defense and the Court examined Dr. R. B. Lal, as CW 1. 3. The prosecution examined Food Inspector Bhanwar Singh PW 1 and Sher Singh PW 2 in support of its case. The applicant examined Sudhir DW 1 in his defense and the Court examined Dr. R. B. Lal, as CW 1. 3. THE trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the applicant accordingly as stated above. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Trial Court, the applicant filed appeal in the Court of Sessions which was also dismissed on 5-12-81 by IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar and as such the order of conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court was affirmed in appeal. 4. I have heard Sri Raj Kumar Jain, Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Government Advocate for the State at a great length and I come to the irresistible conclusion that the conviction and sentence of the applicant recorded by the Courts below must be set aside. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the sanction for prosecution of the applicant under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not valid as it was not accorded by the competent Authority i.e. the Chief Medical Officer Muzaffarnagar. In this context, Section 20 of the Act is quoted below:- 5. IT was urged by the learned defence counsel that the prosecution of the applicant was illegal as there was no proper sanction accorded in this case by the competent Authority as the sanction for prosecution of the applicant was accorded not by the Chief Medical Officer but by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer. IT was further urged that Sri R. B. Lal CW 1 was not at all Chief Medical Officer on the dale when he accorded sanction for the prosecution of the applicant in this case and, therefore, the entire prosecution of the applicant before the Courts below was without jurisdiction. 6. THE learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the notification no. 6000/XVI-X-722-55 dated 18-9-76. By this notification, the Governor was pleased to appoint all CMOs as Local (Health) Authority for P. F. A. Act. 6. THE learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the notification no. 6000/XVI-X-722-55 dated 18-9-76. By this notification, the Governor was pleased to appoint all CMOs as Local (Health) Authority for P. F. A. Act. It was urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the sanction was given by the Doctor R. B. Lal who was Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarnagar. THE said sanction is Ex. Ka. 8. It is signed by Doctor R. B. Lal as Local (Health) Authority, and Chief Medical Officer Muzaffarnagar. THE learned trial court in order to find out whether the sanction was accorded by Doctor R. B. Lal as Chief Medical Officer or Deputy Chief Medical Officer or the Acting Chief Medical Officer, had examined him as CW 1. Doctor R. B. Lal stated on oath that on 2-9-1978 he was holding the post of Chief Medical Officer Muzaffarnagar and he had accorded sanction Ex. Ka. 8 in the same capacity on that date. In cross examination he admitted that he had come to Muzaffarnagar in the capacity of Deputy Chief Medical Officer and at present he was working in the same capacity. He stated that prior to him, Doctor Jindal was regular Chief Medical Officer Muzaffarnagar but he had proceeded on Medical Leave and consequently he took over as Chief Medical Officer in his place. THE defence challenged this statement of Doctor R. B. Lal in cross-examination but Doctor R. B. Lal could not file any document in support of his statement that he was Chief Medical Officer of Muzaffarnagar on 2-9-1978 when he granted sanction for the prosecution of the applicant. He further stated that as Doctor Jindal Chief Medical Officer of Muzaffarnagar went on leave, therefore, he assumed the office of Chief Medical Officer in routine being the senior most officer. He further stated that if any CMO goes on leave, he hands over charge to the next seniormost officer and information in this connection is sent to the Director Health Department of the State and also to the Secretary U. P. Govt., Department of Health whereupon a notification for the appointment of the officer as CMO is issued by the department in favour of the next seniormost officer. He further stated that in this case as well, notification must have been issued by the Government but he admitted his ignorance regarding the issue of such notification in this case. He further stated that he did not bring the charge certificate with him. It is, therefore, absolutely clear that the statement of Dr. R. B. Lal Deputy CMO that he was the Chief Medical Officer on 2-9-1978 when he accorded sanction for the prosecution of the applicant is doubtful. Merely the statement of Dr. R. B. Lal that the Government notification must have been issued appointing him CMO Muzaffarnagar, cannot be taken for granted in the absence of any such notification produced before the Court. Even the prosecution did not file the copy of the alleged notification appointing Sri R. B. Lal as Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarnagar, either before the trial court or even before the appellate court. It was not even filed before the High Court at the time of hearing of revision application. THE best evidence to prove that Dr. R. B. Lal was working as CMO on 2-9-78 was the alleged notification itself and that has been withheld by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. 8. It would thus be highly unsafe to hold that Dr. R. B. Lal, was the Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarnagar on 2-9-1978 when he accorded sanction for the prosecution of the applicant in this case, In the present case the failure of the prosecution in not filing the alleged notification by the State Government appointing Dr. R. B. Lal as CMO Muzaffarttagar has rendered the sanction Ex. Ka. 8 for the prosecution of the applicant invalid. Applying the rule for best evidence, the sole testimony of Dr. R. B. Lal has to be excluded for believing that the sanction accorded by him was valid. In the result, the revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the applicant recorded by the court below are set aside. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled. If the applicant has deposited the amount of fine, the same shall be refunded to him accordingly Dy the trial court. Revision allowed.