JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. 1. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 01.03.2001, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara (for short 'the appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 32/97 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-accused and confirmed the judgment dated 18.12.1996 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara (for short 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No. 653/1996 whereby the learned trial court convicted the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 7/16 (1) (c) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to six month's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default thereof to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.08.1987, the Food Inspector inspected/visited the shop of the petitioner Ramesh Chandra and asked for purchase of 'Besan (gram flour) which was 80-90 Kg. in a sealed Katta and two open 'Tin' for taking sample of the same from the shop of petitioner. The Food Inspector checked the 'Besan' and found the same to be adulterated. He called the manufacturer and when he arrived there he denied to have sold the said 'Besan' to the shop-Keeper. Accused-petitioner Ramesh Chandra did not allow the inspector to take sample and put down the shutter of the shop and thus prevented him from taking any sample. It was also alleged that Ramesh Chandra's brother Bal Ram also came there who actually put down the shutter of the shop. As the Inspector could not take the sample, a complaint was prepared and consent of the authorities was obtained and after that complaint was filed against the petitioner and his brother Bal Ram. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the judgments passed by both the courts below and the material available on record. 4. The learned trial court summarily adopted the trial to be taken as that of a warrant trial case and the trial was proceeded against the petitioner and co-accused Bal Ram and charges were framed against the appellant for offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(c) of P.F. Act. Prosecution examined Om Dutt Sharma (PW-1), Hira (PW-2), Abdul Hamid Shekh (PW-3), D.P. Arya (PW-4) and Dr. K.C. Bapna (PW-5). Prosecution examined Om Dutt Sharma (PW-1), Hira (PW-2), Abdul Hamid Shekh (PW-3), D.P. Arya (PW-4) and Dr. K.C. Bapna (PW-5). The accused-petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegation levelled against him. In his defence, accused examined himself as DW-1 and the statement of other defence witness Ishaq Mohd. (DW-2) was also recorded. 5. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 18.12.1996, acquitted the co-accused Bal Ram for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1) (c) and (d) but convicted the petitioner-accused Ramesh Chandra for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(c) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced as aforesaid. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused argued that complaint was filed for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but there is no evidence that accused persons prevented the Food Inspector for taking sample or prevented him for exercising any other power conferred on him under the Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that Dr. Abdul Hamid Shekh (PW-3) the then Deputy CMHO, in his statement stated that the shop-keeper refused to give sample and closed his shop. D.P. Arya (PW-4) in his statement stated that accused gave sample to the Food Inspector but as per prosecution story the accused denied to give any sample. Both the above said witnesses were declared hostile. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused further argued that the provisions contained under Section 16(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are mandatory as it states that all the offences that fell under Sub-section (1) of Section 16 shall be tried summarily by the Judicial Magistrate First Class i.e. there is no discretion vested with the trial judge to deviate from the procedure prescribed by law. It is not a case where the accused has started for lingering the trial or warrant trial. On the contrary, he further denied and he objected to it and prayed that his trial be conducted as trial provided by law. In spite of that fact, the trial judge had not conducted the summary trial in this case. 9. He further argued that a false allegation was levelled against the petitioner. On the contrary, he further denied and he objected to it and prayed that his trial be conducted as trial provided by law. In spite of that fact, the trial judge had not conducted the summary trial in this case. 9. He further argued that a false allegation was levelled against the petitioner. The truth was that the sample was taken by the Food Inspector and it was found to be in conformity with the prescribed standard but instead of finishing the case, due to some personal enmity and anguish, he falsely implicated the accused-petitioner and his brother Bal Ram stating that accused did not allow him to take the sample. No evidence was led to show that petitioner-accused ever denied to give sample. It is apparent from the Form-VI (Ex.-P4 and Ex.-P5) that sample was drawn in respect of 'Besan' (Gram Flour) for the reason that Ex.-P5 does not contain any denial for giving any sample. No motbirs were obtained or present for denial of the petitioner to give sample. 10. He further argued that the sanction given in this case is not legal one as it is on printed paper and was filled up by the clerk concerned which does not contain the consideration made by which it could be said that the sanctioning authority for prosecution had applied it's mind to the facts of the case. Therefore, in absence of legal sanction, the prosecution was bad and the petitioner deserves to be acquitted. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and he supported the impugned judgments passed by both the courts below. He argued that judgments of the courts below are on concurrent finding and the views of the courts below are based on evidence and material available on record. The trial court having rightly and properly appreciated the prosecution evidence and the relevant material, is found to have arrived at just and proper conclusion of holding the accused-petitioner quilty and rightly convicted the accused-petitioner of the alleged charge and the same was also affirmed by the learned appellate court. 12. I have gone through the evidence on record and the judgments passed by the learned courts below. 13. 12. I have gone through the evidence on record and the judgments passed by the learned courts below. 13. In Fard Report (Ex-P6), Om Dutt Sharma, Food Inspector has stated that denial for giving sample for the examination of adulteration is a punishable offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and all the proceedings were carried out in presence of Dr. Abdul Hamid Shekh, Deputy CMHO, Banswara. The said Fard Report was also read over and explained to the petitioner-accused. 14. Prosecution witnesses Abdul Hamid Shekh (PW-3) and D.P. Arya (PW-4) did not support the story of the prosecution. No independent witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution with regard to the fact that petitioner accused prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample or prevented from exercising any power conferred on him under the Act. 15. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed and the judgment dated 18.12.1996 of conviction passed by the learned trial court and the judgment dated 01.03.2001 passed by learned appellate court are set aside. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender before the trial court. His bail bonds are hereby discharged. A copy of this judgment be sent to the court below forthwith.