JUDGMENT S.I. JAFRI, J. 1. KANHAI Lal, son of Lallu Gupta, r/o Baheri, PS Baheri, District Bareilly has filed this revision against his conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below. He was convicted under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo one.years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and the aforesaid conviction and sentence was upheld by Sri Sushil Kumar, VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal no. 133 of 1981 arising out of Criminal case no. 1113 of 1980, State v. KANHAI Lal decided by Shri Mohammad Farroq Umar, Judicial Magistrate (F) Bareilly. 2. IN brief the prosecution case was that Sri Ranjit Singh, Food Inspector along with Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly and other officials had conducted special raid on the shop of the applicant on 26-12-1978 and demanded the sample of Besan from him but the applicant refused to offer the sample and also closed the shop and went away, thereby, the applicant had prevented Ranjit Singh, Food Inspector from taking the sample of Besan. After obtaining the sanction of the Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly, a complaint was filed against the applicant. The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence in the case and hearing the parties had found the applicant guilty of an offence punishable under section 7/16 of the aforesaid Act and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. The conviction of the applicant was recorded on the basis of the statements of PW-1 Ranjit Singh, Food Inspector and PW-2 Dhyan Singh Pokhari. Ex. ka1 is a letter issued by the GvtO Bareilly authorising the Food Inspector, Ranjit Singh to take sample front the rural areas of the entire district of Bareilly. Ex. kha6 is the sanctioned order passed by the CMO Bareilly for the prosecution of the applicant. 3. IT was contended by Sri Manzarul Islam, the Id. counsel for the applicant that the Food Inspector Ranjit Singh PW-1 was not legally entitled to take the sample from the applicant's shop as he was not appointed as Food Inspector for the said area where the applicant's shop was situated. The prosecution has relied upon the notification no. 7315/XVI-X-722/55 dated November 22, 1973, in order to prove that Ranjit Singh, Food inspector was legally entitled to take the samples from the shop of the applicant. The prosecution has relied upon the notification no. 7315/XVI-X-722/55 dated November 22, 1973, in order to prove that Ranjit Singh, Food inspector was legally entitled to take the samples from the shop of the applicant. The aforesaid Notification is noted below:- "In exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act no. 37 of 1954) read with Section 21 of General Clauses Act 1897 (Act 10 of 1897), the Governor is pleased to appoint, with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Gazette, all Chief Sanitary Inspectors and Sanitary Inspectors referred to in Notification No. 1207/XVI-II-722/55 dated 15th April 1968 as amended by Notification No. U.O. 329/XVI-X-722/55 (T.C.) dated 15th December 1971, who possesses the qualifications prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 as 'Food Inspectors' in Uttar Pradesh for the whole of the District in which they are for the time being posted." 4. NOTIFICATION No. 1207/XVI-II-722/55 dated 15-4-1968 reads as below:- "In supersession of notification No. 10656 (iv) XVI-PH-722-1955 dated Feb. 9, 1956 as amended by no. 862/(ii)/XVI-722-1955 dated September 16, 1958, No. 2320/XVI-722-1955. dated June 27, 1960 and No. 4368/XVI-722-1955 dated Oct. 12, 1961 and in exercise of the powers under section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act XLIV of 1954), the Governor is pleased to appoint with effect from March 1, 1965, the following persons as Food Inspectors in Uttar Pradesh, for areas assigned to them as under: (a) For Rural areas including Town Areas and Notified Areas. (i) All District Medical Officers of Health,, Assistant Medical Officers of Health, Medical Officer-Incharge Anti-Epidemic Operations and Sanitary Inspectors (whether in the service of the Govt. of U.P. or employed by any local body) in respect of the areas falling within their respective jurisdictions. (ii) Sanitary Inspector employed by Sri Badri Nath and Sri Kedarnath Temples Committee (in case he is possessed of qualification prescribed under role 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, in respect of the Area falling within his jurisdiction. (b) For Nagar Mahapalika and Nagar Palikas. (ii) Sanitary Inspector employed by Sri Badri Nath and Sri Kedarnath Temples Committee (in case he is possessed of qualification prescribed under role 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, in respect of the Area falling within his jurisdiction. (b) For Nagar Mahapalika and Nagar Palikas. All Municipal Medical Officers of Health, Additional Municipal Medical Officers of Health, Assistant Medical Officers of Health, Medical Officers Incharge Anti Epidemic Operation, Chief Sanitary Inspectors and Sanitary Inspectors as well as above officers of the Nagar Mahapalika in respect of the areas falling in their respective jurisdictions. (c) For Cantonment Areas: All Senior Executive Medical Officers, Officer Commanding Military Hospitals, Medical Officers and Sanitary Inspector in respect of the above areas falling in their respective jurisdiction. In a Cantonment in which no such officer is available to exercise these powers, the Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board shall be the Food Inspector only within the limits of the Cantonment in which he is employed." It is absolutely clear from the above mentioned notification that it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove that Ranjit Singh, Food Inspector a qualified Sanitary Inspector and had possessed the minimum qualification of Food Inspectors as provided under rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Food Adulteration Act. Sub-rule III of rule 8 reads as under:- "A person shall not be qualified for appointment as Food Inspector unless he is a qualified Sanitary Inspector having an experience as such for a minimum period of one year and has received at least 3 months training in Food Inspector and sampling work in any of the laboratory referred to in clause (1) of rule 6." 5. FROM the statement of PW-1 Ranjit Singh it is clear that he was not appointed as a Sanitary Inspector in the district of Bareilly as referred to in the aforementioned notification dated 15-4-1968. PW-1 Ranjit Singh has stated in his evidence that he was a Food Inspector for the area of Nawabganj in the District of Bareilly. It is also admitted that the town of Baheri where the shop of the applicant is situated is outside the area of Nawabganj. PW-1 Ranjit Singh has stated in his evidence that he was a Food Inspector for the area of Nawabganj in the District of Bareilly. It is also admitted that the town of Baheri where the shop of the applicant is situated is outside the area of Nawabganj. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no evidence on the record to prove that Ranjit Singh, Food Inspector was appointed as Sanitary Inspector as referred to in the Notification No. 1207/XVI-II-722/55 dated 15-4-1968 and possessed the qualifications prescribed under the Food Adulteration Act, 1955 and, therefore, it was rightly urged on the strength of this notification that Ranjit Singh shall not be deemed to be a Food Inspector for whole of the district of Bareilly on the strength of the Notification No 2315/X- VI-10-722/55 dated 22-11-73. I, therefore, told that the courts below fell in error in holding that Ranjit Singh was authorised to take samples from the shop of the applicant being appointed as Food Inspector for the entire district of Bareilly in the absence of the material evidence that Ranjit Singh was Sanitary Inspector as referred to in the Notification no. 1207/XVI-II-722/55 dated 15-4-68 as mentioned above. The courts below fell in error in presuming that Ranjit Singh was Sanitary Inspector though Ranjit Singh himself in his evidence did not state that he was appointed as Sanitary Inspector in view of Notification dated 15-4-68 and 22-11-1973 as Food Inspector for the entire district of Bareilly. Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act prescribes appointment of Food Inspector which reads as under; "The Central Govt. or the State Govt. may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint such person as thinks fit having the prescribed qualification to be Food Inspector for such local areas as may be assigned to them by the Central Govt. or the State Govt. as the case may be." 6. ON the statement of Ranjit Singh PW-1 it is abundantly clear that be was Food Inspector for Nawabganj area in district of Bareilly and as such it should be deemed that he was appointed Food Inspector for Nawabganj, area only in the district of Bareilly in view of Section 9 of the Act. Admittedly Baheri is a big town and it cannot be said that Baheri town will fall within the rural area. Admittedly Baheri is a big town and it cannot be said that Baheri town will fall within the rural area. Though Ranjit Singh had tried in vain to show that town Baheri comes within the rural area but this statement of Ranjit Singh is incorrect and is not at all supported by any document. It is a common knowledge that rural areas of a district comprise of areas other than Municipal areas, Town areas and Notified areas and, there I hold that the Municipal Area, Town Area and the Notified area does not come within the rural areas of the district. It is the prosecution case that on 26-12-78 the Food Inspector Ranjit Singh raided the shop of the applicant situate in the town of Baheri and on refusal of the applicant to allow him to take the sample of Besan, the applicant was prosecuted on the basis of a complaint filed by Ranjit Singh. Hence it is absolutely clear that Ranjit Singh, Food Inspector was not entitled to collect the sample from the shop of the applicant: which was situated within the Municipal limits of the town of Baheri, District Bareilly and, therefore, prosecution of the applicant was absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. It was also urged by the counsel for the applicant that Ranjit Singh, Food-Inspector and other authorities including the Deputy CMO Bareilly were alleged to have raided the shop of the applicant and demanded sample of Besan from the applicant but the applicant bad refused to give sample and went away after locking the shop. Ranjit Singh, Food Inspector was authorised under the law to break open the lock of the shop and collect samples but he did not do so as sub-section (5) of section 10 of the Act empowers the Food, Inspector to break open the door of any premises where any article of food is kept. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is not understandable that why the Food. Inspector Ranjit Singh being empowered to break open the lock of the shop did not do so when the applicant had refused to give sample and had run away after locking the door of the shop. It was further submitted that the Food Inspector could have lodged the report at the Police Station and have sought the police help in the matter. It was further submitted that the Food Inspector could have lodged the report at the Police Station and have sought the police help in the matter. It was also urged that though DCMO was alleged to have been present on the spot but he was not examined in the case and no witness from the public was produced in support of the prosecution case. Therefore, it will not be safe to place reliance on the statement of the Food Inspector in this case. 7. THE learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that it appears that the Food Inspector Ranjit Singh did not actually raided the shop of the applicant at the time alleged by the prosecution in view of the inspection note filed by the Advocate Commissioner in this case. A perusal of the Inspection report shows the correct topography of the shop of the applicant but the topography of the shop as given by the Food Inspector Ranjit Singh PW-1 and Dhyan Singh Pokharia PW-2 in the in statements is contradicted by the Inspection report filed by the Advocate Commissioner which was not challenged by the prosecution. Therefore, 1 hold that the topography of the shop of the applicant as given in the statement of PW-1 Ranjit Singh, Food Inspector and Dhyan Singh Pokharia is certainly, incorrect. This circumstance shows that the Food Inspector Ranjit Singh did not raid the shop of the applicant as stated by him in his evidence before the trial court and, therefore, it is highly doubtful that Food Inspector Ranjit Singh had really raided the shop of the applicant at the time alleged by the prosecution for taking the sample of Besan. 8. IT was further urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Sanction Order Ex. ka6 for the prosecution of the applicant was passed mechanically and the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind while according sanction of the prosecution of the applicant in this case. 8. IT was further urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Sanction Order Ex. ka6 for the prosecution of the applicant was passed mechanically and the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind while according sanction of the prosecution of the applicant in this case. IT was also submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the offence of preventing the Food Inspector for carrying out his duties of taking sample as authorised by the Act is an offence fully covered under section 16 of the Act and it has no connection with Section 7 of the Act but the order of sanction Ex ka6 shows that the sanction to prosecute the applicant was accorded under section 7/16 of the Act and thus the sanction order Ex. kas is also vague Thus it appears that the Sanctioning Authority did not apply his mind while granting sanction for the prosecution of the applicant in this case. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the applicant in this case. 9. IN the result, the revision is allowed, the conviction and sentence of the applicant is set aside. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled. If the applicant has already deposited the fine, it shall be refunded to him by the trial court. Revision allowed.