JUDGMENT A. L. Vaidya,. J.—The present respondent Balbir Singh was convicted for committing an, offence under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter to be called as the Act), for selling adulterated milk on 4-2-1986 at village Bhoop Pur in Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur, H. P. to the Food Inspector Sh, K. P. Garg and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months, vide judgment dated 31-5-1988, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan. This conviction and sentence order was assailed before Sessions Judge Sirmaur District at Nahan who after hearing the parties, accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentenced passed against the convict and acquitted him. 2. The State has assailed the aforesaid acquittal order passed by the lower Appellate Court on various grounds. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. On the basis of submissions put forth by the learned Counsel for the parties, following points require determination of this Court in the present appeal: (1) What is the effect of delayed launching of the prosecution to the right of the accused as provided under section 13 (2) of the Act ? (2) Whether sanction granted under section 20 of the Act for the prosecution of the accused was a valid sanction and has been accorded by the competent authority after application of mind ? (3) Whether the provisions of Rule 18 of the Act have or have not been complied with, if so, its effect ? In order to dispose of the aforesaid points of detemination, some facts relevant in that regard are required to be dealt with. 4. It was on 4-2-1986, that sample of Cows Milk in accordance with procedure was purchased from the accused-respondent who was at that time running a tea-stall, selling tea and milk. One of the samples as per procedure, was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and report of the Public Analyst Ex. P-3 was received by Local Health Authority on 11-3-1986. Food Inspector Mr. Garg, applied for sanction to launch prosecution against the accused through application Ex. One of the samples as per procedure, was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and report of the Public Analyst Ex. P-3 was received by Local Health Authority on 11-3-1986. Food Inspector Mr. Garg, applied for sanction to launch prosecution against the accused through application Ex. P-17 dated 8-4-1986 and through this application various documents, filed with the complaint alongwith report of Public Analyst, were sent to Chief Medical Officer. The Chief Medical Officer accorded sanction for prosecution of the accused vide Ex. P-12 dated 18-7-1986 and the complainant instituted the complaint on 19-7-1986. 5. Complainant examined four witnesses in support of the complaint. Statement of the accused recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, revealed that accused admitted that on 4-2-1986 when Food Inspector Sh. Garg inspected his shop in the presence of Sh. K D. Bhatt, it was found that three litres of boiled Cows milk was exposed in the shop for sale in a Patila. The other circumstances put to him were not admitted by the accused. He simply stated that he was made to sign papers and actually he was dealing in Tea and not selling milk. Accused was asked a question that Local Health Authority sent a notice to him, copy of which was Ex. P-6 alongwith report of Public Analyst vide registered post, vide postal receipt Ex P-7 and also endorsed a copy of the said notice Ex. P-19 to Sh. G. R Puri, Food Inspector To this question, accused replied that he definitely received a registered letter but he did not know about other facts. 6. Ex. P-6 is nothing but an information sent to the accused under section 13 (2) of the Act whereby accused had been informed that sample of Cows milk taken from him on 4-2-1986 had been found to be adulterated and in this behalf a complainant on 19-7-1986 had been preferred against him and it was further informed that in case under section 13 (2) of the Act, accused wanted to send second part of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for re-analysis, accused in that event should make an application within ten days of the receipt of this letter before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib. Public Analyst opined through the report Ex. P-3 that the percentage of milk solids-not-fat was deficient by 34% than minimum prescribed standard. Public Analyst opined through the report Ex. P-3 that the percentage of milk solids-not-fat was deficient by 34% than minimum prescribed standard. Sample of milk purchased from the accused was not tallying with the minimum prescribed standard of Cows milk as provided under the Act. Therefore, milk was found to be adulterated on that score. 7. Ex. P-I2 is the written sanction granted under section 20 (1) of the Act, authorising Sh G R. Puri, Food Inspector, to launch prosecution against the accused under section 7/16 of the Act. This sanction order for the sake of convenience is re-produced hereunder: "I, Dr. N. P Aggarwal, Chief Medical Officer, District Sirraaur, Nahan, having been authorised by the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide notification No. HFW (B) (a) 3-1/81 dated 17-10-1983 and after going through the report of Public Analyst and all other relevant documents in respect of sample of Cows Milk (Boiled) taken from Sh Balbir Singh son of Ram Kishan resident of Bhoop Pur, P. O. Bhadri Nagar, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur H. P by Sh K. P. Garg, Food Inspector, Distt. Sirmaur, Nahan on 4-2-1986 at Bhoop Pur and also after applying my mind fully to the facts of the case, is of the opinion that it is a fit case for launching the prosecution under section 7/16 of P. F. A. Act, 1954. Therefore, I authorise Sh. G. R. Puri, Food Inspector, Nahan to launch the prosecution under section 20 (1) of the said Act against said Sh Balbir Singh, since Sh. K P. Garg, F. I has been placed under suspension". 8. Food Inspector Sh. K. P. Garg, who took sample from the accused, has been examined as PW-4. He has stated on oath all the material facts relevant for taking of sample and the procedure as envisaged by law and rule to have been followed by him. His entire evidence is not relevant but during his deposition in very specific and clear terms, he stated that he sealed all the three samples in accordance with rules and law and he has given detail in his statement to that effect. However, he added that one sample alongwith Form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh and separately he sent one Form VII alongwith sample of seal, copy of which was Ex P/15 alongwith letter Ex. P-14 to Public Analyst, Chandigarh. However, he added that one sample alongwith Form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh and separately he sent one Form VII alongwith sample of seal, copy of which was Ex P/15 alongwith letter Ex. P-14 to Public Analyst, Chandigarh. He also added that remaining two parts of sample alongwith Form VII in duplicate, seal impression were given to the Local Health Authority, Nahao, on 5-2-1986 vide receipt Ex. P-16. Ex P-14 is the copy of the letter through which form VII alongwith seal impression in respect of sample under reference had been sent to the Public Analyst. This was a registered letter. Ex. P-15 is the copy of Form VII along with seal impression thereon. Only specific portion of the statement of Food Inspector, has been referred to above, with the sole purpose as this would be relevant to dispose of the matter under controversy. It may be referred here that Food Inspector, PW-4 has not at all been cross-examined by the accused on the facts disclosed by him pertaining to sending of Form VII alongwith impression of seal to Public Analyst 9. In the report of the Public Analyst Ex. P-3, it has been very clearly mentioned that seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by Food Inspector and the sample was in a condition fit for analysis. 10. The aforesaid factual side which has been brought on record during the trial only would be relevant in order to dispose of the points of determination referred to above. 11. The lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the delay in launching of the prosecution has not in any way prejudiced right of the accused as provided under section 13 (2) of the Act, but on the other hand learned Sessions Judge, came to the conclusion that sanctioning authority in the instant case had not applied its mind while granting sanction to prosecute the accused and therefore sanction Ex. P-12 could not be said to be in accordance with law and hence prosecution launched against the accused on invalid sanction in violation of provision of section 20 of the Act is bad in law. P-12 could not be said to be in accordance with law and hence prosecution launched against the accused on invalid sanction in violation of provision of section 20 of the Act is bad in law. According to the learned Sessions Judge, as the postal receipt had not been brought on record, during the trial, it could not be said that Rule 18 stood legally complied with and as a consequence thereof as provisions of the said Rule were mandatory and non-compliance of that vitiated conviction The conviction, as such, on this ground also, was set aside. 12. Section 13 (2) of the Act, has made available a right in favour of the accused in case the accused so desires to refer the retained sample to be analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. This provision has been made with the sole purpose that report of Public Analyst may not be considered to be final in so far as the opinion expressed by the Public Analyst was concerned. Its validity and legality could be otherwise assailed by adducing evidence in this behalf that the article of food has not been analysed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules by the Public Analyst. In case the Public Analyst has followed all the procedures in basing the report regarding article of Food, in that event also, a special right has been provided in favour of the accused by section 13 (2) of the Act in order to assail the report by making an application in this behalf to the Court for sending one of the retained samples by Local Health Authority for analysis by the Central Food Laboratory The certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-sec. (2-B) shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst under sub-section (1), meaning thereby the finality is attached to the report of Director of the Central Food Laboratory, in case the accused has selected to exercise that right in accordance with the provisions of the Act 13. In the present case, admittedly, accused did not select to exercise the rights, vested in him, under section 13 (2) of the Act It has come on record that a notice under section 13 (2) of the Act was issue J to the accused but inspite of that he thought it better not to exercise that right. 14. In the present case, admittedly, accused did not select to exercise the rights, vested in him, under section 13 (2) of the Act It has come on record that a notice under section 13 (2) of the Act was issue J to the accused but inspite of that he thought it better not to exercise that right. 14. It has been referred above, while discussing factual position of the case, different dates were material in this case, when the sample was taken from the accused and when it was analysed by the Public Analyst. Needless to say, the Public Analyst, iii report Ex P-3, has very specifically mentioned that sample was in a condition fit for analysis, meaning thereby the milk in that bottle had not decomposed but was fit for analysis. 15. In case the accused had exercised his right under section 13(2) of the Act and the Director of the Central Food Laboratory because of delayed analysis of the sample sent to the Director had reported or opined that sample sent for analysis had decomposed and, as such, was not tit for analysis, in that event, it could be said that because of delay, the valuable right made available to the accused under section 13 (2) of the Act to assail report of the Public Analyst could not be exercised In that event definitely prejudice can be said to have been caused to the case of the accused and on that short ground acquittal could follow. But in the present case, as right, under section 13 (2) of the Act has not at all been exercised, there fore, it cannot be said that right of the accused or his defence stood prejudiced This aspect is being discussed here, as the learned Counsel for the accused, put forth his argument in this behalf, in this appeal. 16. The aforesaid proposition of law has been discussed in SCC 1994 Vol. 16. The aforesaid proposition of law has been discussed in SCC 1994 Vol. I, 754, T. V. Usman v. Food Inspector, and it has been held that no doubt, sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act confers valuable right on the accused under which provision the accused can make an application to the Court within a period of 10 days from the receipt of copy of the report of Public Analyst to get the samples of food analysed in the Central Food Laboratory and in case the sample is found by the Central Food Laboratory unfit for analysis due to decomposition by passage of time or for any other reason attributable to the lapses on the side of the prosecution, that valuable right would stand denied. According to their Lordships this would entitling him to acquittal but mere delay as such will not per se be fatal to the prosecution case even in cases where the sample continues to remain fit for analysis inspite of the delay because the accused is in no way prejudiced on the merits of the case inspite of such delay. It has been further held that therefore it must be shown that the delay has led to the denial of right conferred under section 13 (2) and that depends on the facts of each case and violation of the time- limit given in sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 by itself cannot be a ground for the prosecution case being thrown out. Unless, there is proof of prejudice, there can be no cause for complaint by the accused. 17. Thus, as facts stood established in the present case, no prejudice, on account of delay, has been caused to the accused, especially when accused selected not to exercise valuable right provided in his favour under section 13 (2) of the Act. 18. There is no doubt to the proposition that prosecution under the Act can be instituted except by, or with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government. 19. This provision has been made in the Act, with some specific purpose, that being to avoid frivolous, baseless and un warrvnted prosecutions. 20. 19. This provision has been made in the Act, with some specific purpose, that being to avoid frivolous, baseless and un warrvnted prosecutions. 20. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge, has come to the conclusion that Authority, granting sanction, has not applied its mind while granting sanction on the ground that sanction order on record was a cyclostyled form alleged to have been filled in mechanically. 21 In order to arrive at that conclusion the facts existing in an individual case have to be first ascertained and then appreciated in accordance with law. 22. Ex. P-12 is the sanction for prosecution granted in this case by a competent authority. There is no dispute that Ex P-12 is a cyclostyled form wherein blank portions have been filled in by typing. Without going to the circumstances and the facts involved in the case, can the Court come to a conclusion that the form on which sanction was granted was a cyclostyled one and filled in with type written letters, makes the sanction illegal, having been granted without application of mind ? I think answer would be no. In order to come to that conclusion, one has to appreciate the evidence on record in the background of sanction order. It is correct that in case sanction order contains certain facts which are not proved on record, in that event, it can be said that sanction has been given in mechanical manner. For example, in the sanction order it has been mentioned, that sanctioning authority considered the Public Analyst report while granting sanction for launching prosecution under section.7/16 of the Act, but actually the Public Analysts report if considered and appreciated at its face value, does not make the sample to be adulterated one, it can then be said that sanctioning authority has not cared to go through the Public Analyst report relied upon by sanctioning authority in the order granting sanction for prosecution. In the present case, I think such is not the case here, the sanction order Ex P-12 has been proved to have been made after considering all the relevant documents and applying its mind by concerned authority and the Lower Appellate Courts observation in this behalf appears to have been made without appreciating the circumstances proved in the case. 23. In the present case, I think such is not the case here, the sanction order Ex P-12 has been proved to have been made after considering all the relevant documents and applying its mind by concerned authority and the Lower Appellate Courts observation in this behalf appears to have been made without appreciating the circumstances proved in the case. 23. Ex P-17 is the letter dated 8-4-1986 addressed to the Chief Medical Officer, requesting to grant sanction for prosecution against Balbir Singh accused In this letter it has been very specifically mentioned that following papers were also submitted for perusal which have been described as under. 24. Notice Form VI (Ex. P-8), Receipt (Ex, P-9), Copy of label affixed on bottles (Ex, P-11), Panchnama (Ex. P-10), Copy of Form VII sent by registered post with a forwarding letter (Ex P-14), Copy of Form VII sent alongwith sample of seal and Form VII in duplicate (Ex. P-15 and Ex P-16) and report of Public Analyst (Ex. P-3). 25. On the basis of the report of Public Analyst, sample of milk taken from the accused has been found to be adulterated being not in accordance with the minimum prescribed standard, as provided under the Act and Rules in this behalf. 26. Sanctioning Authority in Ex P-12, in very clear terms mentioned, that "after going through the report of Public Analyst and all other relevant documents in respect of sample of Cows Milk (Boiled) taken from Sh. Balbir Singh son of Sh. Ram Kishan resident of Bhoop Pur, P. O. Bhadri Nagar, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur by Sh. K. P. Garg, Food Inspector, Distt Sirmaur, Nahan on 4-2-1986 at Bhoop Pur and also after applying my mind fully to the facts of the case, is of the opinion that it is a fir case for launching the prosecution under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954." What more application of mind is required by the sanctioning authority as has been reflected in this case in the order itself. The sanctioning authority not only considered the documents referred to above sent by the Food Inspector but also considered the opinion given by the Public Analyst, which definitely made the sample taken from the accused to be adulterated one Moreover, in the present case, whatever has been considered by the Authority concerned at the time of making this order of sanction, otherwise has been proved during the trial and there is absolutely no dispute to that effect. Not a word has been submitted in this regard while arguing the appeal by the learned Counsel for the defence. His sole grievance has been that because of cyclostyled nature of sanction, it would be inferred that same was granted in a mechanical manner. This submission does not hold good in view of the circumstances present in this case and as discussed above. 27. This proposition of law has been laid to rest by Division Bench of our own High Court in The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surinder Kumar, 1993 (1) SLJ 36 In this reported case, various decided cases by Apex Court and by other High Courts have been taken note of while laying down the principle involved in the case. In this State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surinder Kumar, (supra) accused had been acquitted as the Court found that written consent for prosecution was invalid as it was in cyclostyled form and did not reveal that there was proper application of mind. The brother Judges constituting Bench held that it was not necessary that document containing written consent should be elaborate so as to disclose in meticulous details the documents and material which was before the authority. Paras 10 and 11 of the aforesaid reported case being relevant are reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience: "10. The view expressed by Bhawani Singh, J. in Om Prakash v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr Misc. Paras 10 and 11 of the aforesaid reported case being relevant are reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience: "10. The view expressed by Bhawani Singh, J. in Om Prakash v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr Misc. Peti (M) No. <09 of 1989 decided on 30th November, 1989 reported in 1989(11) FAC 355 ; referred to in the decision of the learned Sessions Judge is the one expressed by him in various decisions reported as State of H. P v. Roop Ram, 1989 (II) FAC 16 ; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mussa, 1989 (II) FAC 88 ; Satish Kumar Bhatia v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1989 (TI) FAC 91 ; Parkash Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1989 (II) FAC 95 ; Sukhchain Singh of M/s Shiv Dairy Rajasansi, Amritsar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1989 (II) FAC 222 ; Dharam Pal v. State of H P., 1991 FAJ 170 and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hari Singh, 1992 (1) FAC 40 Almost each of these decisions has turned on its own facts. But it appears that the learned Sessions Judge wrongly felt that it was laid down by brother Bhawani Singh, that wherever the written consent was found contained in a cyclostyled form filled in by someone, and the sanctioning authority had simply signed it, it was to be treated to be invalid. That we feel, is not what has been laid down by the learned Judge. What he emphasised was the fact that application of mind on the part of the authority to the relevant facts should be established on the record of a case before a prosecution founded upon a written consent contained in a printed or cyclostyled form, wherein the columns had been filled in, though elaborately, by someone else and the signatures of the sanctioning authority appended to it, could be sustained in law. The fact of application of mind by it to the relevant considerations and factors should be established by the prosecution to uphold a prosecution on the basis of such written consent. The fact of application of mind by it to the relevant considerations and factors should be established by the prosecution to uphold a prosecution on the basis of such written consent. We may add that it is not possible to take the view that as a matter of law wherever the written consent is on a printed or cyclostyled form, columns of which are filled in, though elaborately, by someone else and the sanctioning authority appends its signatures thereon, the written consent would be improper or invalid. If that can be said to be the view expressed by the learned Judge, though we feel that it was not so, we find ourselves with great respect unable to subscribe to it." 11. True it is as said by the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1986 SC 2160, (in paragraph II) that: “ ...The terms of section 20 (!) of the Act do not postulate further delegation by the person so authorised, he can only give his consent in writing when he is satisfied that a prima facie case exists in the facts of a particular case and record his reasons for the launching of such prosecution in the public interest." Yet, it is difficult to read in these observations the further requirement that the document containing written consent’ should be elaborate in the sense that it should also disclose in meticulous details the documents and material which was before the authority which accords the written consent’. That fact can be established, in the event of absence of suitable recitals in the order of written consent by evidence aliunde. We are unable to read the decision in A. K. Roy (supra) in the manner in which it was read by a learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Adda Kasivisweswara Rao v State of A. P., 1990 (2) FAC 267 (in paragraph 4) while saying that : "Thus, the above judgments made it clear that the sanctioning authority must first state what is adulterated as per report of the Public Analyst and what material it has perused and then what are the reasons for granting the sanction in the light of the public interest. The sanctioning order must contain the above said material so as to be in accordance with section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act If there is any lacuna in sanction order, then the entire prosecution vitiates and the accused is entitled for its benefits" 28. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances proved in the present case is stood legally established that sanctioning authority while giving sanction Ex. P-12 on record had sufficient material before it to pass that order after applying its mind. As referred earlier, all the documents considered by the sanctioning authority have been otherwise proved on record. Sanctioning authority came to the conclusion that on the basis of the documents coupled with the report of Public Analyst it was a fit case for launching case under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Fool Adulteration Act and for which offence, accused has been prosecuted. I do not, as such, find any illegality of any kind, more so, as pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge in the present sanction order which otherwise is valid and comes within the ambit of section 20 of the Act. 29. The next point involved in the present case as pointed out by the lower Appellate Court has been whether Rule 18 which was of mandatory nature has not been complied with in the present case, resulting acquittal of the accused. 31. Rule 18 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Rules, reads as under :— Memorandum and impression of seal to be sent separately : A copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent, in a sealed packet separately to the Public Analyst by any suitable means immediately but not later than the succeeding working day. The Lower Appellate Court has given the benefit to the accused for non-compliance of Rule 18 on the sole ground that postal receipts have not been produced which could establish that memorandum of specimen impression of seal had been sent in a sealed packet separately to the Public Analyst. 1, think such an inference was most un-called for on the basis of the facts established in ibis case. 31. PW-4 Sh. K. P. Garg, Food inspector was the person who took sample from the accused, and the version given by him on oath has been referred to above. 1, think such an inference was most un-called for on the basis of the facts established in ibis case. 31. PW-4 Sh. K. P. Garg, Food inspector was the person who took sample from the accused, and the version given by him on oath has been referred to above. He has very specifically stated that be separately sent one Form VII alongwith sample of seal, copy of which on record was Ex. P-15 alongwith letter, copy of which on record was Ex, P-14 to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh. 32. Sample was taken on 4-2-1986. Ex. P-14 is the copy of the registered letter dated 4-2-1986, sent to the Public Analyst, through which Form VII with seal impression used in the sample under reference were sent, Ex. P-15 and Ex. P-16 are the copies of the Form VII send along with impression of seal and the sample. These copies contained impression of the seal used by the Food Inspector while sealing the samples taken from the accused. In the report of the Public Analyst Ex. P-3, it is very specifically recorded that seals fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector and the sample was in a condition fit for analysis. 33. The aforesaid version given by Food Inspector on oath has not disputed by the accused as the Food Inspector had not been cross-examined in this particular behalf when he was examined on oath as PW 4. 34. Rule 18 has been provided with the sole purpose that identity of the sample taken from the accused is maintained till the same was analysed by the Public Analyst. This rule wants to ensure that quality of article of food and its identity remains the same when sample was taken till it was analysed. This Rule is a rider against tampering. 35. The lower Appellate Court has relied upon some case law wherein in that particular case, sample was sent through registered post but the postal receipts had not been brought on record to prove that fact. This Rule is a rider against tampering. 35. The lower Appellate Court has relied upon some case law wherein in that particular case, sample was sent through registered post but the postal receipts had not been brought on record to prove that fact. There is no doubt that it is for the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that specimen of seal had been sent to Public Analyst as was the requirement of Rule 18 but in order to prove that facts and circumstances will differ in each individual case Here in the present case, the Food Inspector when examined on oath has not at all been cross-examined in this behalf, as pointed out earlier. He has made deposition on oath that through Ex.P-14 and Ex. P-15, sample of seal alongwith Form VII were sent to the Public Analyst who also in report very specifically mentioned that seals on the sample tallied with the impression of seal sent by Food Inspector. Non cross-examination of the Food Inspector in this behalf makes the version given by him not only correct but valid also which could be used against the accused. In this view of the matter, compliance of Rule 18 stood legally established in the present case and it cannot be said that this mandatory rule had not been complied with as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge. 36. Last, but not the least on behalf of the accused, it has been submitted that since the accused happens to be an ordinary shop-keeper deserves leniency. All these circumstances have been taken note of by the learned trial Magistrate while awarding sentence against the aforesaid conviction, and the sentence awarded being the minimum under the Act, the order of sentence, as such, does not require any modification 37. In view of the foregoing reasons, present appeal preferred by the State succeeds and the acquittal order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, in appeal, is set aside and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Magistrate are up-held and maintained. Appeal allowed.