JUDGMENT 1. -This revision has been preferred by accused petitioner Jes Raj under the following circumstances:- There as a partnership firm named as Ganesh Desi Ghee Bhandar, Sriganganagar. Petitioner and Chhotulal were its partners. The same was dissolved on 1.1.83 and the petitioner remained the sole proprietor thereof. On 27.3.83 the shop was checked by Chiranjiial, Food Inspector of Sriganganagar. The petitioner was present. Deshi Ghee was found at the shop in an aluminium container measuring about 30 kg. The Food Inspector purchased 450 grams of ghee and paid Rs. 14.40 as its price to the petitioner. He also obtained a receipt after paying the price. He informed the petitioner that ghee was being purchased as sample for the purpose of analysis. Information was given in prescribed from No. VI. Before Ramswaroop Sehgal and Babulal, the ghee was poured in three clean and dry bottles. They were sealed and thereafter, one of them was sent to the public analyst, Sriganganagar along with form No. VII. Another form No. VII was sent to the public analyst along with sample of seal. Another bottle was sent to the Local Food Authority, Sriganganagar. Report of the public analyst dated 4.4.83 was received and the sample was found adulterated, as it did not confirm to the prescribed standards of the purity and was highly adulterated with vanaspati. Papers were submitted for sanction to the Local Authority and sanction for prosecution Ex.P 10 was obtained. Food Inspector, Chiranjiial PW 1, put up the complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar on 25.5.83. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar explained the ingredients of offence to the petitioner on 4.9.84 who claimed trial. Thereafter PW 1 Chiranjiial Food Inspector, Babulal and Ramswaroop Sehgal attesting witnesses were examined and then the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not produce any witness in defence. His defence was that the day of checking i.e. 2 .3.83 was a Sunday and the festival of Holi was to be celebrated after 2-3 days. The ghee was kaccha and was being heated. It was not saleable and he had requested the Food Inspector that the sample should be taken from the ghee which was prepared and was ready for sale but even then the sample was taken. The ghee was kaccha and was being heated. It was not saleable and he had requested the Food Inspector that the sample should be taken from the ghee which was prepared and was ready for sale but even then the sample was taken. He also pleaded that the shop is not opened on Sundays but because of ensuing Holi festival he had gone to his shop in order to clean it. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing both the parties convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to one year's R.l. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. He further ordered that in case the fine is not deposited the petitioner will undergo R.l. for two months. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge which was decided by Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar, who maintained the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conviction should not be maintained in this case because firstly, the sanction given by Local Authority which is Ex.R 10 has been given without applying mind particularly because the case of the petitioner was that he had gone to the shop in order to clean the shop and sample was taken from the container which was being heated in order to prepare the ghee. His second contention is that the learned Magistrate did not put questions regarding the report of the public analyst when the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. and the petitioner has been greatly prejudiced Therefore, his contention is that this revision should be allowed and the petitioner should be acquitted. 3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has controverted these arguments and has tried to support the judgments of the courts below.So far as sanction, Ex.R 10, is concerned, I find that it does bear the signatures of the Local Health Authority but the sanction is in a printed form in which blank columns have been filled. It does mention the name of the petitioner as well as his address in the hand writing of somebody else other than the Local Health Authority. 4. It does mention the name of the petitioner as well as his address in the hand writing of somebody else other than the Local Health Authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited 1988 Cr.L.J. 48, Gahininath Bhimrao Patekar v. State of Maharashtra and others and submitted that the sanction should not be vague and omnibus. In this citation it has been observed that the sanctioning authority must point out the relevant particulars on the basis of which the prosecution was based. It is not enough to fill up the blanks in the proforma of the sanction order which demonstrates total non-application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. Therefore, the sanctioning authority should not only apply its mind to the facts and circumstances to be satisfied that prima facie case existed but also record reasons why launching of prosecution against the offender is necessary in the public interest and the prosecution based on such sanction cannot be sustained. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cited 1992 RCC, 240, Sukhram @ Bhole v. State of Rajasthan, in which it has been observed that when the sanction is in printed form it is a case of non-application of mind of the sanctioning authority. It has been further observed that if the written consent is not in accordance with law the court cannot take cognisance against an accused and conviction and sentence are bad in law. The sanction in the present case is Ex.P. lO is as follows:- "Whereas on 27 3.83 a sample of Ghee (sample No. Cl. 12/83) was taken by Shri Chiranjiial Food Inspector from Shri Jes Raj S/o Shri Rawat Ram Sharma, Ganesh Desi Ghee Bhandar, Sringanganagar and whereas on perusal of report of the Public Analyst Sriganganagar and other relevant documents submitted to me and after applying my mind, I am satisfied that an offence under Section 7/16 RF.A. Act has been committed. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by the State Govt, vide Notification No. FS (24)M/ 4/Gr. 1 dated 23.9 70 (published in Rajasthan Rajpatra part 4(7) date 10.11. 8 and corrigendum No.F. 8 (25)M3 4 dated 24.1.79 published in Rajasthan Rajpatra part 4(7) dated 8.2.79 at page No. 394 under Section 20(i) of RF.A. Act, 1954. I, Dr. J.R Saxena, Chief Med. 1 dated 23.9 70 (published in Rajasthan Rajpatra part 4(7) date 10.11. 8 and corrigendum No.F. 8 (25)M3 4 dated 24.1.79 published in Rajasthan Rajpatra part 4(7) dated 8.2.79 at page No. 394 under Section 20(i) of RF.A. Act, 1954. I, Dr. J.R Saxena, Chief Med. & Health Officer cum Local Health Authority, Sri Ganganagar do hereby accord written consent to Shri Chiranji Lal Food Inspector to institute prosecution against Shri Jes Raj S/o Rawat Ram Sharma Prop. M/s. Ganesh Desi Ghee Bhandar Sadar Bazar, Sriganganagar in the court of law for committing an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Sd/- Chief Medical & Health Officer cum Local Health Authority Sriganganagar.A similar sanction was given in Sukhram's case (supra) in which the above observations were made.In Babulal v. State of Raj., 1991 RCC 357 , written consent in a printed form was given in which only the blanks were filled in as it is in the case in hand. It was observed that the written consent was not a ritual and must be given only after application of mind and since no such application of mind was done by the local authority, the sanction was not in accordance with law and no cognisance could be taken on its basis. It may be stated that the sanctioning authority i.e. CMHO-cum-local authority was never produced before the learned Magistrate in order to prove the same and to say that he had applied his mind. Therefore, when there is no application of mind before granting the sanction, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence and the result is that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate did not comply with the provisions of Section 313 Cr.PC. and did not put any question about the report of the public analyst to the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.PC. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate did not comply with the provisions of Section 313 Cr.PC. and did not put any question about the report of the public analyst to the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.PC. Shri Ramnarain Singh, who was the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar put the following four questions to the petitioner:- "(1) vkids f[kykQ fpjathyky PW-1 o jkeLo:i PW-3 dk dguk gS fd fn0 27-3-83 dks vki x.ks'k ns'kh ?kh Hk.Mkj] Jh xaxkuxj esa crkSj ekfyd ?kh csp jgs Fks] ftlesa ls mlus 450 xzke ?kh fu;ekuqlkj tkWap gsrq [kjhnk] tks tkap ls feykoVh ik;k x;k] vr,o fu;ekuqlkj lsaD'ku ysdj ifjokn is'k gqvkA vkidks D;k dguk gS\ (2) ckcqyky PW-2 us QnZ EX.P-3, EX.P-4 o EXP.5 ij viuk gLrk{kj Lohdkj fd;k gSA vkidks D;k dguk gS\ (3) lk{khx.k vkids fo:) lk{; D;ksa nsrs gSa\ (4) D;k izfrj{kk esa dksbZ lk{; is'k djuh gS\ " This court has in various citations explained the purpose of examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC. and has held that no prejudice should be caused to an accused. In the instant case no question was asked by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding the report of the public analyst and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has tried to justify this lapse on the part of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by saying that even if the question would have been asked, since the appellant did not know science of examination of ghee, there was no need to put such a question. I am afraid that the learned Additional Session Judge Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain did not understand the purpose behind Section 313 Cr.PC. while deciding appeal on 6.4.89. 7. In Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 620 , which was decided on 20 7 88, the law was laid down by this Court that when the report of the laboratory was not put to the accused in examination under Section 313 Cr.PC. it cannot be used against the accused and it was further observed that it is settled law of the land that no circumstance can be used against accused which has not been put to him in examination under Section 313 Cr.PC. for obtaining his explanation. 8. it cannot be used against the accused and it was further observed that it is settled law of the land that no circumstance can be used against accused which has not been put to him in examination under Section 313 Cr.PC. for obtaining his explanation. 8. It has been observed in Mool Chand v. The State of Haryana, 1984(1) FAC 224 , that when an accused was charged with misbranding of rapeseed oil and no question was asked about misbranding, it was held that the accused was prejudiced and, therefore, he was acquitted. 9. In Kaliram v. State of Haryana, 1983(1) FAC 161 , it was held that the report of the Director was not put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC. and he was not afforded any opportunity to explain the position with regard to the report it caused prejudice to the accused. 10. In Jang Bahadur v. State, U.T. Chandigarh, 1983(1) FAC 312 , it has been observed that an accused is greatly prejudiced by improper examination under Section 313 Cr.PC. Actual and real circumstances that were brought out in evidence against the accused should be put to him under Section 313 Cr.PC. 11. Learned PR submitted that case may be remanded. The case cannot be remanded after such a long time on this count. A similar circumstance had arisen in Jagdish Prasad's case (supra) and it was held that it was not just to remand the case and the accused was acquitted. 12. Besides, I have found that Local Health Authority gave sanction without applying mind. In view of above discussion the revision should be allowed and the accused petitioner should be acquitted. 13. In the result, the revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge under Section 7 16 of the PFA Act. Fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to the accused petitioner. 14. Copies of this may be forwarded to Shri Ramnarain Singh, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar and Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain, the then Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar at the places of their posting at present.Petition allowed. *******