Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision petition, under Section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure code, is directed against the judgment dated 5-9-2000, passed by 2nd Additional sessions Judge, Seoni, in Criminal Appeal No. 2/96, arising out of the judgment dated 29-12-1995, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni, in Criminal Case no. 2745/90 by which the applicant was found guilty under Section 7 read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short p. F. Act) and convicted for six months R. I. alongwith fine of Rs. one thousand, has been upheld in appeal. ( 2. ) FOR the purpose of disposal of this revision the material facts of the case are that Food Inspector, S. K. Nigam, went to the hotel/shop of applicant on 28-7-90 at about 10 oclock in the morning, where the applicant was dealing his business of hotel and so many things like sweets, Namkeen, Tea etc. were available there for sale. Then the said Sub-Inspector gave a notice to applicant to purchase the commodities of the sweets i. e. , Laddu and purchased magaj Ka Laddu and it was also informed that he is purchasing the said commodities for the purpose of sampling under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As alleged after payment 1. 00 Kgm. Magaj Ka Laddu was purchased with a receipt issued by applicant and the same were divided in three parts and sealed by preparing the Panchnama. ( 3. ) THEREAFTER one packet of the sample was sent to the Public analyst through registered post and Form No. VII was also sent,to the Public analyst with a different registered post envelops remaining two parts of samples were deposited with the local health authority. On examination by the Public analyst, the above said laddu found as adulterated as per Section 2 (ia) (j) of the P. F. Act. In view of the said report, after taking sanction from the concerning authority, the complaint was submitted before the Trial Court and subsequently, the notice under Section 13 (2) of the P. F. Act was also sent to the applicant regarding intimation for filing challan. ( 4. ) DURING trial, prosecution examined only one witness S. K. Nigam, food Inspector (P. W. 1), while in defence applicant examined Rahamatullah khan (D. W. 1 ). ( 4. ) DURING trial, prosecution examined only one witness S. K. Nigam, food Inspector (P. W. 1), while in defence applicant examined Rahamatullah khan (D. W. 1 ). By appreciation of the evidence the Trial Court found guilty to the applicant and convicted as said above. Applicant preferred an appeal but the same has also been dismissed. Hence this revision. ( 5. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for applicant and learned government Advocate for State, I am of the view that this revision deserves to be allowed. ( 6. ) COUNSEL for applicant submitted that as per prescribed procedure under the Rules, the sample was not collected and sealed. He also submitted that Form No. VII was not sent to Public Analyst as it was not deposed by the said S. K. Nigam in his deposition. He also submitted that sanction for prosecution was not given by the concerning authority with proper application of mind as the sanction was given only in cyclostyle fill up the blank form while for giving the sanction the authority had to apply his mind and reasoned order should have been passed and in the lack of this, the applicant was entitled for acquittal. His further submission was that the notice under Section 13 (2) of P. F. Act was not sent to the applicant and merely on the basis of acknowledgment due receipts, the presumption can not be drawn against him about sending the said notice and the said presumption can only be drawn when the postal receipts about sending the notice is produced and proved by the prosecution and according to him, the said postal receipt was neither produced nor proved by the prosecution, and lastly, he submitted that the sample was taken in the year 1990 and thereafter near about 15 years have been passed and the applicant has already suffered the pain and agony of the case and spent his time by giving his regular appearance before the Trial Court, Appellate Court and before this Court also, and, therefore, a lenient view be adopted and he should not be sent again in jail for facing the jail sentence. He cited some authorities in support of his contention. ( 7. ) WHILE, on the other hand, the Counsel for State justified and supported the impugned judgments and prayed for dismissal of this revision petition. ( 8. He cited some authorities in support of his contention. ( 7. ) WHILE, on the other hand, the Counsel for State justified and supported the impugned judgments and prayed for dismissal of this revision petition. ( 8. ) WHEN I examined the above said submissions of applicant, then so far his first submission is concerned, regarding collection and seizure of sample, I do not find any substance in his arguments because after giving due notice for inspection to applicant the said commodity was purchased and price was also paid and elaborate Panchnama was also prepared for taking the samples in accordance with rules of the above said Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Thus all the formalities were fulfilled by the Food Inspector and, therefore, the first submission of the applicant fails. ( 9. ) SO far his second submission is concerned, the Form No. VII was sent to Public Analyst alongwith the sample of the commodity, has not been proved by the Food Inspector himself as per his testimony. As per record, the postal receipt of sending the Form No. VII and Form No. VII is placed and exhibited during deposition but in the statement of said witness nothing has been said that Form No. VII was sent to the Public Analyst. In view of this, this submission has some force but in view of the copy of the said Form and postal receipt of the registered post which are placed and proved on record merely on this ground the applicant is not entitled to get any relief from this Court, therefore, other circumstance are necessary to be examined then this aspect can also be considered. ( 10. ) SO far his third submission is concerned, it is apparent that sanction Ex. P-17 is given in a cyclostyle form in which blank columns are only filled up by the concerning authority and even in the form name of complainant was written after cutting the name of Mr. R. P. Singh and such sanction is given on this point. No witness of the sanctioning authority or his subordinate have been examined to prove the sanction but the same is accepted mere on the basis of statement of said Food Inspector only. R. P. Singh and such sanction is given on this point. No witness of the sanctioning authority or his subordinate have been examined to prove the sanction but the same is accepted mere on the basis of statement of said Food Inspector only. Even in the sanction it is not mentioned that what thing was found by the Public Analyst in his report for declaring the sample as adulterated so it appears that without perusing the Public Analyst report the sanction order was passed by the authority concerned and, therefore, the sanction can not be said that it was given by adopting the prescribed procedure of law. Although, the Counsel for the State has placed reliance on the case of Suresh H. Rajput Vs. B. P. Soni and others, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2883 , in which it was held that if the sanction is given even in cyclostyle form then the same is valid. I do respect to that principle laid down by the Honble apex Court, but, in the present facts and circumstances of the case the sanction was necessary to be proved by the concerning authority or its subordinate, therefore, this is one of the circumstance which can be considered with other aspect of the case and whenever the suspicion or doubt regarding any document or circumstance in a criminal case then benefit goes in favour of the accused. ( 11. ) SO far his fourth submission is concerned, that source of sending notice under Section 13 (2) of P. F. Act neither produced nor proved by the prosecution. It is apparent that the concerning receipt by which the said notice was handed over to the post office was the only proof for sending the notice, therefore said postal receipt was material document but the same is not available on record as was not produced by the prosecution, therefore, mere on the basis of acknowledgment due receipt no presumption can be drawn that the same notice was sent to applicant because the source of sending is very material and important thing and when sending of such notice is doubtful then apparently applicant was deprived by his valuable right to examine the sample from the central Food Laboratory (CFL) and merely on this count the applicant was entitled for acquittal but the same was not given by the Courts below. My aforesaid view is fully supported by a decided case of this Court (Deshraj Vs. State of M. P. , reported in 2003 M. P. Weekly Notes Vol. 2 Note 103) which says as under:- "the another facet of the case is of the non-compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act. Though Ex. P-13 has been filed by the prosecution indicating that notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was sent to the accused but there is no proof of the receipt. Ex. P-13 does not contain the signature of the accused. There is no document indicating that by which mode, the notice was sent to the accused/applicant. A Court of law can not assume that if a copy of letter exists on the record of the office, the letter must have been sent. There is no such presumption that official course of business must have been followed does not extend to the fact that when a copy of a document is in official record, that copys original must have been sent to anybody to whom it has been addressed or must have reached there. It has not been established that the original of Ex. P-13 was tendered at some post office for delivery of the accused by registered post and no postal receipt and the acknowledgment due slip has been produced. Thus, the mandatory provision of Section 13 (2) of the Act regarding sending of intimation about Public Analyst inviting the accused to take option in the Court regarding sending of any sample to Central food Laboratory had not been complied and therefore, on this ground the conviction of the applicant can not be maintained. In this context, it shall be profitable to refer to the decision of this court in the case of Ghansu Vs. State of M. P. , 1999 (II) MPWN 17 = 1999 (1) MPLJ 613 and Rahees Vs. State of M. P. , 1998 (I)MPWN 119. " ( 12. ) IN view of the aforesaid decision if sending of Form No. VII to the Public Analyst and notice under Section 13 (2) of the P. F. Act to the applicant are not proved by cogent evidence then this would be the circumstances for giving the benefit to the accused/applicant. ( 13. " ( 12. ) IN view of the aforesaid decision if sending of Form No. VII to the Public Analyst and notice under Section 13 (2) of the P. F. Act to the applicant are not proved by cogent evidence then this would be the circumstances for giving the benefit to the accused/applicant. ( 13. ) IN view of the abovesaid premises, the perversity in the judgments of the Courts below is apparent and when perversity is found then certainly it comes in the purview of the error of jurisdiction committed by the Courts below and the same can be interfered in the revision so by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. I set aside the judgments of the Courts below and conviction of the applicant and hereby he is acquitted and it is further directed that if fine amount is deposited by applicant the same be refunded to him. ( 14. ) REVISION allowed. Criminal Revision allowed.