JUDGMENT G.B. Singh, J. - Harish Chandra revisionist is a sweet meat seller. Sri Akhileshwar Tewari, Food Inspector, went to his shop on 10th April, 1980 and inspected the sweets kept therein. He asked the revisionist to produce the licence for carrying on the business, but according to the Food Inspector he failed to produce it. In his inspection note he mentioned that the sweets were kept uncovered and flies were sitting over them. He obtained sanction for prosecution for breach of Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Food Inspector then filed a complaint against the revisionist for breach of the aforesaid Rule 50. The Food Inspector examined himself as P.W.1 and one witness Mangroo in support of the case. The learned Magistrate convicted the revisionist for violation of Rule 49 and Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and sentenced him to two months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500.00 (in default, to undergo one month's R.I.). The appeal preferred by Harish Chandra was allowed in part and his conviction under Section 7/16 read with Rule 50 was set aside. He was, however, found guilty for the offence under Sections 7/16 read with Rule 49 and his sentence was reduced to a fine of Rs. 400.00 (in default, to undergo one month's Article imprisonment). Against this decision the present revision has been filed. 2. The record of the lower Court was summoned and perused and parties counsel were heard. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that there was no sanction for prosecution of the revisionist for breach of Rule 49 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and as such he could not be convicted and sentenced under Section 7/16 read with Rule 49. There is much force in this argument. 4. Rule 49 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules lays down conditions for sale of articles of food and their containers. According to this Rule, the articles of food should be kept in such a state that there may be protection from dust, dirt, flies and other insects. The Food Inspector did not obtain any sanction for prosecution of the revisionist for breach of Rule 49. According to this Rule, the articles of food should be kept in such a state that there may be protection from dust, dirt, flies and other insects. The Food Inspector did not obtain any sanction for prosecution of the revisionist for breach of Rule 49. He simply prayed for sanction for the prosecution of the revisionist for breach of Rule 50. Rule 50 provides that no person shall manufacture, sell, stock, distribute or export for sale any articles, of Food except under a licence. In the complaint also it was not mentioned that any breach of Rule 49 has been committed by the revisionist and so he should be punished for this offence also. Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act lays down that no prosecution for an offence under this Act, not being an offence under this Section 14 or Section 14-A shall be instituted except with a written sanction. The present case does not fall within the purview of Section 14 or Section 14-A of the Act. Thus no sanction was either prayed for nor obtained for an offence under Section 7/16 read with Rule 49 and its absence the conviction of the revisionist for committing this offence cannot be allowed to stand. 5. The revision is allowed. Since on the ground of want of proper sanction there can be discharge and not acquittal, the revisionist is discharged and his conviction and sentence under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, read with Rule 49 of the Rules framed under the Act is set aside. Fine if realised, shall be refunded to the revisionist.