JUDGMENT K. Narayan, J. - This is a revision against the order dated 1.5.1982 rendered by II Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 1981 dismissing the appeal against the conviction and sentence awarded by the Magistrate in proceedings under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, against the revisionist. 2. It will be worthwhile to mention few facts obtaining in this revision. The revisionist was challaned for selling Ladoos, which, according to the report of Public Analyst, were prepared with ground-nut oil, mustard oil and Castor oil and, according to the prosecution story, which has already been believed he had offered for sale with a representation that they were made in ground nut oil. His defence was that Ladoos were prepared for the supply to one Jata Shankar on his order and the sample was taken when he was carrying them for delivery to the said person. This aspect has already been disbelieved by the learned Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal. 2A. In this revision, two aspects have been argued before me. 3. The first argument in this case relates to the consent. The consent in this case is in the form that there is a printed form of complaint wherein necessary blanks have been left and have been duly filled into complete the facts constituting the offence and averments in respect thereof. This has been signed by Shri R.C. Panday Food Inspector. In this there is another printed matter with the blanks which have been duly filled in with the help of type writer conveying that Dr. P.W. Mathur, Chief Medical Officer, Farrukhabad duly authorised under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, gave his consent to Shri P.C. Panday, Food Inspector, Kamalganj to institute the complaint against Triveni Dhar. This has been duly signed and sealed with rubber stamp of official designation. It was urged that this sanction has been accorded without application of mind as it did not evidence in any manner that the Chief Medical Officer had applied his mind. 4. In order to properly appreciate the contention about the application of mind few observations about the requirement thereof should also he dealt with. Under various Sections of various Acts requirement of pre-conditions before prosecution have been dealt with and they are in different forms. 4. In order to properly appreciate the contention about the application of mind few observations about the requirement thereof should also he dealt with. Under various Sections of various Acts requirement of pre-conditions before prosecution have been dealt with and they are in different forms. At times, as also in the case of Bankey v. State of U.P., reported in 1979 A.L.J. 278 a written consent and sanction have been shown to be almost on equal footings. Similarly in the case of Ratan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Mehar Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh disposed of by a common judgment and reported in 1990 (1) E.I.R. page 82, High Court of Himachal Pradesh has also placed them on almost equal footing. However, with respects, I find myself unable to consider them on the same footing. The ordinary dictionary meaning of 'consent"and 'sanction' have been quoted in both the above decisions. For ready reference I will reproduce them here before quoting other dictionaries: (I.) Imperial Dictionary of the English language by John Coil vic LL.D. New Edition 1904 Vol. III page 766 'Sanction' An official act of a superior by which he ratifies and gives validity to the act of some other person body. 'Consent' To grant, to allow, to assent, A voluntary accordance with what is done or proposed to be done by another. II. BOUVIER'SLAW DICTIONARYBAIWIN'S CENTURY EDITION 1948 'Consent' 'approve of 'Sanction' Not quoted in the above decisions) III. DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH LAW BY SARI JOWITT 'Consent' An act of reason accompanied with deliberation. 'Sanction' Not quoted in the above decisions. Note: As shown from the above reports. IV. THE NEW LEXICON WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 'Sanction' 'explicit permission given by some one in authority, a factor, e.g. a penalty for violation, tending to secure obedience to a rule of conduct or law, ratification of a law by a supreme authority, approve of, to give encouragement to, ratify, attach a penalty to violating of law or decree. 'Consent' 'Permission, acquiescence, approval agreement, as verb to assent. V. THE GRESHAM COMPREHENSIVE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE BY RICHARD FERRAR PATTERSON AND JOHN DOUGALL 1937 'Sanction' To render sacred or inviolable, an official act of a superior by which he satisfies or give validity to the act of some other person or body, ratification or confirmation, authority, penalty incurred by infringement of a command. V. THE GRESHAM COMPREHENSIVE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE BY RICHARD FERRAR PATTERSON AND JOHN DOUGALL 1937 'Sanction' To render sacred or inviolable, an official act of a superior by which he satisfies or give validity to the act of some other person or body, ratification or confirmation, authority, penalty incurred by infringement of a command. 'Consent' 'Consention' (Latin) I agree, to feel, to agree, to accord, to yield, as to persuasion or entreaty, to acquiesce or accede, voluntary in accordance with what is done or proposed by another, concurrence a yielding of the mind or will to that which is proposed; Acquiescence ; concurrence compliance, accord of minds, agreement in opinion or sentiment intelligent concurrence in the terms of a contract or agreement of such a nature as to bind the party consenting. 5. The above two sets of meaning given to words 'consent' and 'sanction' in various dictionaries lends support to an impression that generally speaking a sanction is a mat tee with authority and the consent is simply an agreement with the feelings of the proposer. 6. Apart from the above situations of dictionaries which are not very much limiting in their meanings, reference to Section 196 Cr.P.C. will be of value. In this Section, the words 'consent' and 'sanction' which arc supposed to be the synonyms in view of the above two decisions have been used separately and with distinct purpose. Chapter XIV of the Code of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down various conditions requisite before initiation of proceedings under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code Sub Section 1 and 1-A of Section 196 Cr.P.C. require prior sanction of State or Union Government in cases where prosecution is to be for an offence under Sections 153-A, 295-A, 505 I.P.C. On the other hand, for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 153-B or Section 505(2) and (3) I.P.C. previous sanction either of the two governments or District Magistrate is necessary. On the other hand, when offences are merely conspiracy under Section 120-B I.P.C. in respect of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or R.I. for two years, Sub Section (3) requires only consent in writing of the Government or the District Magistrate. Here two words have been used by the Legislation in the same Section when the gravity of the offence complained of has varied. Here two words have been used by the Legislation in the same Section when the gravity of the offence complained of has varied. This obviously shows that sanction and consent are not on the same footing. It may also be said that mere word "written consent" would not make any difference as every office of Government is an office of record and the word 'written' before the consent in Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is, therefore, almost an uncalled for adjective. 7. The requirement of sanction and consent is not only for the reason of gravity of the offence as the offences covered under sub-Section (2) may also at times cover those described in sub-Section 1 and 1-A of the same Section. The distinction is vital in the requirement of the exercise of authority by the authority concerned. The sanction may need consideration of the prosecution or otherwise, keeping in mind over all impact of the wrong on the general public while consent may be necessary in respect of the offence with lesser involvement of the public or even in order to keep a watch upon the institution of the frivolous complaint, which naturally result in harassment to others. There may be certain cases where despite wrong tho wing taken place the prosecution may not be in better interest of the running Government formed and established by law. To turn those suggestions down merely on this account may not be a good principle and naturally the principle should not vary with the accused involved in the individual cases. It may also mentioned that in the cases covered by Section 196(3) Cr.P.C. the authority concerned, may direct investigation before according sanction. The investigation includes all proceedings under the Code for collection of evidence conducted by the police officers or by any person other than a Magistrate, who is authorised by the Magistrate in this behalf. Though this aspect has no direct application, but the fact remains that before sanction, the sanctioning authority should be provided with a complete picture of facts before him. 8-9. It may also be mentioned at the plea relating to application of mind before the High Court may also not be available to the revisionist in every case. Though this aspect has no direct application, but the fact remains that before sanction, the sanctioning authority should be provided with a complete picture of facts before him. 8-9. It may also be mentioned at the plea relating to application of mind before the High Court may also not be available to the revisionist in every case. There can be no two opinions that where sanction of consent is to be accorded by the public servant, it has to be done with application of mind. As to what will need a reasoned order and what reasons can be considered sufficient; as to what will be the proper application of mind and what application of mind will be considered in sufficient is a matter of every case. However, the order of public servant is not open to debate before the trial Court as that is generally done in the High Court sitting in writ jurisdiction. Such a factor, therefore, cannot be raised in revision where the authority of the High Court is also akin to second appeal where all findings of' facts stand concluded and only questions of law are to be considered. The High Court is not expected to sit in revision as a court of appeal to appreciate the evidence and generally would not interfere with the findings of fact. The jurisdiction in criminal revision is severely restricted and the Court should not embark upon the appreciation of the evidence. Ordinarily High Court accepts the finding of fact unless the same is vitiated by perversity. I need not cite various authorities, which have been referred to at page 1105 of the Commentary of Code by Batuk Lal and Staya Prakash Srivastava, 1988 Edition. When the facts constituting the consent or want thereof and the application of mind in respect of the same have not been brought on record, it will be too wild to decide them merely upon seeing a document against presumption that in every office the work is done by a public servant legally, and with due diligence. The mere fact that the complaint has been got printed and the sanction has also been got typed is a matter of convenience and not of laxity. The mere fact that the complaint has been got printed and the sanction has also been got typed is a matter of convenience and not of laxity. Therefore, in my opinion, this aspect cannot be considered in the revision unless there has been objection in respect of it before the trial court and the same has been validly decided with proper evidence. 10. 1 would also like to refer to Section 465 Cr.P.C. here which reads as under: "465. (1) Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a court of appeal confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. (2) In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings." It is evident from the words 'no finding, sentence or order passed or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a court of appeal confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint or any error of irregularity in any sentence for the prosecution unless in the opinion of that Court a failure of justice has, in fact, been occasioned thereby" that even if there is any irregularity in sanction, it by itself is not sufficient to disturb the finding or sentence unless a consequent failure of justice has been made out. Than again under Clause (2) of the above Section, regard also has to be kept for the fact whether the objection, regard also has to be kept for the fact whether the objection could and should have been to raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings. Than again under Clause (2) of the above Section, regard also has to be kept for the fact whether the objection, regard also has to be kept for the fact whether the objection could and should have been to raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings. In the instant case the accused were examined on 13-8-77, after recording most of the evidence of prosecution but he said nothing about the validity of consent. Even at later stage nothing was put forward in this behalf before the Magistrate. 11. It may be mentioned that the defects, if any, is in the weight only proportionate to their requirement under Section 196 Cr.P.C. the requirement of sanction/consent is a precondition for the jurisdiction of the Court and in their absence the court is barred from taking cognizance. In Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the requirement of sanction does not bar the jurisdiction of court and is mere a departmental mandate for officers subordinate in duties. It is evident from the fact that any person can lodge a complaint if it is accompanied by the report of Public Analyst. A Food Inspector is also included in any person and the thought that he cannot bring the complaint under Section 20(2) of the Act does not seem reasonable. They only distinction can be as to when the department shall be considered as a prosecutor. 12. With the above observations, I will again revert to the decision in the case of Bankey referred to above where type sanction/consent was taken to be the consent with due application of mind. 13. I will now proceed with the other aspect relating to Section 13 of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Under Section 13(2) of the Act, it is undoubtedly incumbent upon the local authority that is Chief Medical Officer to forward a copy of the report of the result of the Public Analyst to the person concerned after institution of the prosecution. This is obviously with a mind that the accused person may make arrangement and take steps for his defence to challenge the report of Public Analyst by getting the other sample kept in the office of Chief Medical Officer examined and analysed by another Analyst. In the instant case complaint seems to have been received in the Court of Chief Judicial Officer on 19.11.76. In the instant case complaint seems to have been received in the Court of Chief Judicial Officer on 19.11.76. It was argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that he received letter Ex. K-6 dated 9.11.76 from the Chief Medical Officer but he got no enclosures with it. The contention of enclosures having not been sent to him could not find favour from any part of the evidence. Ordinarily it is difficult to accept the contention of accused in denial of a part of ate letter which he had admittedly received. However, one more factor remains three. This letter is dated 9.11.76 and as already said above, the complaint was lodged with Chief Judicial Magistrate on 14.11.76 after the consent was accorded by the Chief Medical Officer Section 13(2) of the Act directs that on receipt of the report of the result of analysis and that being to the effect that the food is adulterated, the local authority shall, after the institution of the prosecution against the person.. . .forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of report. ... informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the local authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. In view of this language more that one actions were necessary on the part of the Chief Medical Officer. He had to send the letter and the report after institution of the complaint and then he had also to convey that in case the accused person desires he should get the other sample tested by the Central Food Laboratory. Rule 9-A of the Rules framed under the Act may not be available to the defence as it came into effect from January, 1977 but the provisions of Section itself have been enforced in April, 1976 at least. As already said above the letter sent by the Chief Medical Officer Ex. Ka-6 had simply forwarded a copy of the report dated 27.7.76 and had left the accused to consider as to what would be the proper proceedings which was not the proper compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act and this has prejudiced the trial. 14. As already said above the letter sent by the Chief Medical Officer Ex. Ka-6 had simply forwarded a copy of the report dated 27.7.76 and had left the accused to consider as to what would be the proper proceedings which was not the proper compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act and this has prejudiced the trial. 14. In result the revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge are hereby set aside. The revisionist shall stand acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is on bail. He need not surrender his bail and bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties discharged.