JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - This is a criminal revision petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401, Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 23rd October, 1990, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 64/1988 by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar upholding the conviction & sentence imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar in Cr. Case No. 104 1979 vide judgment dated 19th March, 1987 under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. It was on 26th July, 1978 that the concerned Food Inspector-cum-Dy. CM & HO (Health), Alwar took a sample of til oil from the shop known as M/s. Data Oil Mill, Kedal Ganj, Alwar in the presence of the petitioner. The sample was sent for chemical analysis to the Public Analyst, Alwar, who gave his report on 2nd August, 1978 as under:- (a) Butyro - refractometer reading at 40°C. 59.0 (b) Saponification value 184.5 (c) Iodine value 104.4 (d) Un-saponifiable matter 0.8% (e) Free fatty acid as Oleic Acid 1.9% (f) Bellier test (Turbidity Temperature - Acetic Acid method) 25.5°C. (g) Test for rancidity Negative (h) Test for added colouring matter Negative (i) Test for Mineral oil Negative 3. After obtaining the sanction dated 31st May, 1979 a regular complainant was filed against the petitioner along with two others, namely Banshidhar and Ram Sahai. During the trial an application had been moved on behalf of the accused persons for getting the certificate from the Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. This application was allowed and another sample taken by the concerned Food Inspector on 26th July, 1978 was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for chemical examination. The certificate dated 25th January, 1980 was issued by the Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad and the same duly received by the trial Court. According to the Central Food Laboratory the results were as under:- (a) Butyro-refractometer reading at 40°C. 58.8 (b) Saponification value 189.0 (c) Iodine value 109.7 (d) Free Fatty Acid as Oleic Acid 3.67% (e) Polybromide test Negative (f) Unsaponifiable matter 0.78% (g) Bellier Turbidity Temperature 19.8°C. (h) Baudouin's Test Positive (i) Test for HCN Negative (j) Test for Argemone Oil Negative (k) Test for Mineral oil Negative (l) Test for presence of artificial colouring matter Absent (m) Test for presence of Caster oil Negative (n) Halphen's test Negative (o) Moisture & Volative matter 0.06% 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar acquitted co-accused Ram Sahai and co-accused Bansidhar expired and the present petitioner was convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Against this order of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar on 19th March, 1987 with regard to an incident of 26th July, 1978, an appeal was preferred by the present petitioner Deen Dayal Gupta and the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar by his judgment and order dated 23rd October, 1990 upheld the order of conviction and sentence against the petitioner as had been passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar. 5. It is against this order dated 23rd October, 1990 that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Deen Dayal Gupta. On behalf of the petitioner, Shri S.R. Bajwa has raised two contentions (1) the first submission is that in view of the report which has been received from the Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, a fresh sanction should have been obtained for prosecuting the petitioner, and since the petitioner was prosecuted without a fresh sanction after the receipt of the report of the Central Food Laboratory, the proceeding which had been taken against the petitioner and which had resulted in his conviction stand vitiated; and (2) that since the report of the Central Food Laboratory has been received, it supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and as per the report of the Central Food Laboratory, the free fatty acid as oleic acid which has been found to be more than the maximum prescribed limit, was within the prescribed limit when the sample was taken as is apparent from the Public Analyst Report dated 2nd August, 1978 and the Central Food Laboratory has clearly opined that, "free fatty acid as oleic acid is above the maximum prescribed limit. Free fatty acid is, however, subject to increase from the date of drawal of the sample and its final analysis in this laboratory. The sample is considered as not adulterated". Free fatty acid is, however, subject to increase from the date of drawal of the sample and its final analysis in this laboratory. The sample is considered as not adulterated". It is, therefore, obvious that the free fatty acid as oleic acid which was 1.9%, as shown in the report of the Public Analyst dated 2nd August, 1978 and which had been found to be 3.67% i.e. more than the prescribed limit of 3%, is on account of the lapse of time between the date of taking the sample i.e. 26th July, 1978 and the date of examination by the Central Food Laboratory as per the report dated 15th January, 1980. 6. Shri K.N. Sharma, on the other hand, submitted that if the proceedings have been taken against the petitioner without taking the sanction afresh after the receipt of the report of the Central Food Laboratory, even if the impugned order is to be set aside on this ground, it has to be left open for the prosecution to proceed afresh against the petitioner after obtaining the sanction even now. So far as the submission that the contents of free fatty acid as oleic acid was within the prescribed limit at the time when the sample was taken as per the report of the Public Analyst dated 2nd August, 1978 and that the same has been found to be little more than the prescribed limit i.e. 3.67% instead of 3%. Shri K.N. Sharma has relied upon State of Tamil Nadu v. S. Shanmugham Chettiar and another ( AIR 1981 SC 175 ) . 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record including the report of the Public Analyst dated 2nd August, 1978 and the report of the Central Food Laboratory dated 25th January, 1980. I find that under Section 13 (3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory under Section 2(B) supersedes the report given by the Public Analyst under Sub-sec. (1). I find that under Section 13 (3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory under Section 2(B) supersedes the report given by the Public Analyst under Sub-sec. (1). In this view of the matter, when the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad in its report dated 26th January, 1980 had opined that the sample is considered as not adulterated and the reasoning explaining the same has also been given for the excess percentage of free fatty acid as oleic acid that it could increase between the date of drawal of the sample and its final analysis in this laboratory, the report of the Public Analyst dated 2nd August, 1978 stands superseded and there is no reason for not adhering to the certificate issued by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. Thus, the sample had been considered as not adulterated by the Director, Central Food Laboratory and, as such, there was no basis for recording the finding of conviction against the petitioner. The submission of Shri K.N. Sharma with reference to State of Tamil Nadu v. Shanmugham Chettiar and another (supra), which has also been referred and relied upon in the order of the appellate court, it may be straightaway observed that this case is quite distinguishable because in the aforesaid case of Tamil Nadu v. S. Shunmugham Chettiar and Anr. , the percentage of free fatty contents was beyond the prescribed limit of 3% even at the time when the sample was first examined. It is clear from para 3 of the aforesaid Supreme Court's judgment that free fatty acid had increased from 5.1% to 6.2%. Thus, the free fatty acid contents of the oil was exceeding 3% even at the initial stage in the case before the Supreme Court and, therefore, even if it had increased from 5.1% to 6.2% it was of no consequence. Thus, the free fatty acid contents of the oil was exceeding 3% even at the initial stage in the case before the Supreme Court and, therefore, even if it had increased from 5.1% to 6.2% it was of no consequence. 5.1% itself being in excess of the prescribed limit of 3% and hence the conviction had to be sustained, in the facts of the case, at the initial stage also the percentage of free fatty acid as oleic acid was only 1.9% which was less than 3% and, therefore, if it has increased to 3.67% by the time the sample was analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, the increased and excess of 0.67% stands explained in the certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory itself. For these reasons, the Supreme Court judgment as reported as State of Tamil Nadu v. S. Shunmugham Chettiar & Anr. (Supra) is of no help to the prosecution. 8. Since I have come to the conclusion that the finding of conviction in this case should not have been recorded against the present petitioner in the facts of this case and, this finding suffers from a serious legal infirmity, the question of considering Shri Sharmas request to allow the prosecution to go ahead again and afresh against the petitioner by obtaining the sanction even now, simply does not arise. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19th March, 1987 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar in Criminal Case No. 104/79 and dated 23rd Oct, 1990 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar, in Cr. Appeal No. 64/1988 are quashed and set aside. The order of the petitioner's conviction and sentence is set aside and he is acquitted of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender to his bail bonds. 10. The revision petition is allowed as indicated above. The record of the case may be sent back to the courts concerned immediately. *******