ORDER : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The applicants have filed the above mentioned both the Revision Applications under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhandhuka in Criminal Case No. 369 of 1988, dated 15.11.2000 and as confirmed by the learned 3rd Joint District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2000, dated 16th May, 2002, wherein the accused came to be sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of one month for the offence punishable under Section 7 (1) and 16 (1) (A) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present applications are that the complaint is filed by Mr. Shaileshbhai S. Yagnik, Food Inspector, Food and Drugs Control Administration, Ahmedabad alleging that the original accused No. 1 Shirish Chimanlal Shah was carrying on business of grocery shop and dealing in food oil, spices, grain etc. On 13.08.1985, at about 15 : 30 hrs., the accused No. 1 was carrying on his business in his shop. At that time, the complainant visited the shop of the accused No. 1 and called one person as a panch witness. Thereafter, he took sample of oil from 15 kilograms packed tin branded 'Do bhai' label of Damodar Mill, Junagadh in presence of the panch for the purpose of analysis and thereafter, the said sample of ground nut oil was packed in neat and clean vessel and after following due procedure, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Rajkot for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst was received. As per the said report, Iodine value of 102.14 B.R. 58.0 Seponic Fixation Value 179.55 and Bellier Test 38.0 D.S., which are in breach of the provisions of the Food Adulteration Rules (for short "the Rules"). Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondents -accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the summons were issued against the accused and the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate in pursuance of the summons. 3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined witnesses and produced various documentary evidences. After recording the evidence, the charge was framed against the accused at Exh. 73. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the summons were issued against the accused and the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate in pursuance of the summons. 3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined witnesses and produced various documentary evidences. After recording the evidence, the charge was framed against the accused at Exh. 73. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order convicting the respondents-accused. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the accused preferred appeal before the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), wherein the learned Special Judge, after hearing the parties to the proceedings, dismissed appeal and confirmed the judgment recorded by the learned Magistrate, therefore, the aforementioned Revision Applications are preferred. 5. Mr. Bhamre, learned advocate for the applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 220 of 2002 and Mr. D.K. Modi, learned advocate for the applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 228 of 2002 mainly submitted that the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and wrongly recorded the order of conviction. However, it is contended that the learned Magistrate as well as the First Appellate Court failed to consider various contentions as regards violation of mandatory provisions of law while conducting the trial against the present accused and for violation of the mandatory provisions of the aforesaid Act and Rules, conviction could not be recorded and confirmed as such. By way of preferring the present Revision Applications, the applicants have raised the said precise contentions. 6. Mr. Bhamre, learned advocate for the applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 220 of 2002 and Mr. D.K. Modi, learned advocate for the applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 228 of 2002 further submitted that during the course of taking the sample of edible oil from packed tin, the complainant inquired as to from where he purchased the said packed tins of edible oil. D.K. Modi, learned advocate for the applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 228 of 2002 further submitted that during the course of taking the sample of edible oil from packed tin, the complainant inquired as to from where he purchased the said packed tins of edible oil. Then, the accused No. 1 - vendor disclosed that he purchased 10 packed tins of edible oil weighing 15 kilograms from M/s. Ashwinkumar Chandulal Company (Firm), Surendranagar and thereafter, the complainant noticed the label pasted in the side of tin disclosing 'Damodar Oil Mill, Junagadh' and the brand name was also found to be 'Do Bhai' on it. Thereafter, he drew panchnama in presence of panch and thereafter, he carried out procedure for obtaining requisite sanction from the competent authority by way of addressing the letter to the competent authority, wherein he sought for the sanction to prosecute against the present applicants as well as M/s. Ashwinkumar Chandulal and Company, Surendranagar, however the Competent Authority accorded sanction only against the present applicants and on perusal of the said letter in which the sanction has been accorded by the competent authority, the authority has not at all assigned any reason for dropping M/s. Ashwinkumar Chandulal and Company, Surendranagar from prosecution. In view of the aforesaid factual scenario, the complainant launched the prosecution against the present applicants only. 7. As M/s. Ashwinkumar Chandulal Company, Surendranagar from whom the vendor purchased 10 packed tins oil and from which the sample was drawn, was not came to be prosecuted and impleaded as an accused. Therefore, at the stage of trial as well as before the First Appellate Court, the alleged manufacturer and nominee raised contention that the goods in question was never sold to the vendor and even goods in question were not belonged to him. Label and lead disclosing the brand name of 'Damodar Oil Mill' as 'Rajarani' as the 'Damodar Oil Mill' is carrying on business under the name and style of 'Damodar Oil Mill' showing the brand name as 'Rajarani' and not as 'Do Bhai'. However, the said contention is neither raised before the learned Trial Court nor before the Appellate Court. It is further contended that the complainant did not issue a mandatory notice as envisaged under Section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1945 and for want of even requisite notice under Section 11, the entire prosecution falls and vitiated. However, the said contention is neither raised before the learned Trial Court nor before the Appellate Court. It is further contended that the complainant did not issue a mandatory notice as envisaged under Section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1945 and for want of even requisite notice under Section 11, the entire prosecution falls and vitiated. They have also contended that while taking the sample from the packed tin, the Inspector who took the sample, did not stir thoroughly the contents of the oil lying in the tin so as to make it homogeneous and representative in nature. For that reasons also, the variations in the analysis are bound to occur and in the series of decisions, this Court and other Courts have granted benefit of doubt to the accused and therefore, the conviction is required to be quashed and set aside as such. It is further contended that once during the course of taking the sample itself, the vendor disclosed that he purchased 10 packed tins from M/s. Ashwinkumar Chandulal Company, Surendranagar and produced the bill at exhibit 34, the said dealer/vendor was not impleaded as an accused in the proceedings. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the entire chain as regards the transaction from whom he has purchased and in fact as to who is manufacturer of the goods in question, on that count also, the prosecution fails. 8. Mr. K.P. Raval, learned APP for the respondent No. 2 - State has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned trial Judge as well as the First Appellate Court are just and proper. He has further submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge as well as the Appellate Judge have committed any error in passing the impugned orders convicting the accused. He has further argued that the learned Magistrate as well as the first Appellate Court have assigned ample reasons for convicting the present applicants which call for no interference. He has further argued that the sample was found to be adulterated and in such case, the Court should view very strictly and when both the Courts below have convicted the accused as such, therefore, this Court should not interfere in the revisional jurisdiction as such. He has further argued that the sample was found to be adulterated and in such case, the Court should view very strictly and when both the Courts below have convicted the accused as such, therefore, this Court should not interfere in the revisional jurisdiction as such. He has also argued that while exercising the revisional power, the scope is very limited, this Court is only to see whether the order is legal or proper and the entire re-appreciation of the evidence is not permissible. He has argued that this is a clear case of adulteration and therefore, the orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the First Appellate Court are required to be confirmed by this Court. 9. This Court has heard Mr. Bhamre, learned advocate for the applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 220 of 2002 and Mr. D.K. Modi, learned advocate for the applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 228 of 2002 and Mr. K.P. Raval, learned advocate for the respondent - State in both the Revision Applications. 10. Having perused the impugned judgments delivered by the learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and the Record and Proceedings of the learned Trial Court, since the aforementioned applications are the Revision Applications, this Court is required to satisfy as regards the legality and propriety of the impugned judgments. 11. The contention as regards the drawl of the sample is that the Food Inspector, while drawing the sample, did not stir thoroughly the entire edible oil available in the packed tins so as to make it homogeneous and representative in nature for its analysis. On this aspect and on going through the panchnama, nothing reveals from the panchnama that while drawing the sample, the Food Inspector, panch and Helper - Rajabhai have stirred thoroughly the entire edible oil which was contained in the packed tin. On this aspect and on going through the panchnama, nothing reveals from the panchnama that while drawing the sample, the Food Inspector, panch and Helper - Rajabhai have stirred thoroughly the entire edible oil which was contained in the packed tin. Similarly, nothing reveals from the complaint as well as in the deposition of the complainant, therefore, the fact becomes clear that while drawing the sample, the Food Inspector did not stir the entire quantity of edible oil and in view thereof, the parameter of the edible oil may differ and in view of the decisions of this Court in the series of matters, as the sample which was drawn, was not in the nature of representative and homogeneous, the benefit of doubt is required to be extended to the accused as such. So far as the contention in respect of not impleading M/s. Ashwinkumar Chimanlal Company, Surendranagar as an accused is concerned, it is clearly emerging out from the Record and Proceedings that the during the course of taking the sample of ground nut oil, it was revealed that the retailer has purchased the aforesaid ground nut oil from M/s. Ashwinkumar Chimanlal Company, Surendranagar and hence, the complainant has also obtained the bill issued by the M/s. Ashwinkumar Chimanlal Company. During the course of procedure for obtaining sanction, the complainant has also sought for the sanction to prosecute against the aforesaid M/s. Ashwinkumar Chimanlal Company, Surendranagar as well as the present applicants. However, the Competent Authority has granted sanction to prosecute the retailer, the manufacturer and the nominee only and left out M/s. Ashwinkumar Chimanlal Company, Surendranagar. 12. In view of the aforesaid, it can surely be noticed that as per the say of the vendor, 10 packed tins were came to be purchased from M/s. Ashwinkumar Chimanlal Company and only M/s. Ashwinkumar Chimanlal Company, Surendranagar is the competent to say from whom he purchased the alleged 10 packed tins of edible oil as such. Unless M/s. Ashwinkumar Chimanlal Company is impleaded as the accused and the proper inquiry is to be made from him as to from whom he purchased 10 packed tins of edible ground nut oil, it is not possible for the prosecuting agency to link the original accused Nos. 2 and 3 as the producer and manufacture as such. Unless M/s. Ashwinkumar Chimanlal Company is impleaded as the accused and the proper inquiry is to be made from him as to from whom he purchased 10 packed tins of edible ground nut oil, it is not possible for the prosecuting agency to link the original accused Nos. 2 and 3 as the producer and manufacture as such. Solely based upon removable label came to be pasted on the side of packed tin of ground nut oil and without having lead disclosing the brand name over the said packed tin, it is highly impossible to presume that the said edible ground nut oil came to be manufactured by the original accused Nos. 2 and 3 as such. 13. Not only that, another very disturbing feature is emerging out as per the Records and Proceedings that soon after the drawl of the panchnama and upon receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the requisite mandatory notice as envisaged under Section 11 is also admittedly not served upon the original accused Nos. 2 and 3 before launching the prosecution. On that count also, the true fact could not reveal before the prosecuting agency, though the original accused Nos. 2 and 3 manufacturing the edible ground nut oil under the name and style of Damodar Oil Mill, its brand is 'Rajarani' and not 'Do Bhai'. On that count also, the sanctioning authority as well as the complainant could have inquired into the matter before launching the prosecution against the accused as such. 14. The Sanctioning Authority has passed very cryptic order, which is at Exhibit 65, wherein the Assistant Commissioner has passed the order which contains four lines only and not recorded any reason for sanctioning the prosecution against the present applicants. Not only that, the Sanctioning Authority dropped the name of M/s. Ashwinkumar Chimanlal Company, Surendranagar though the sanction was also sought for by the prosecuting agency against it. On that count also, sanction also appears to have been accorded without application of mind and therefore, the order of conviction cannot sustain. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the aforementioned Criminal Revision Applications are allowed. On that count also, sanction also appears to have been accorded without application of mind and therefore, the order of conviction cannot sustain. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the aforementioned Criminal Revision Applications are allowed. The judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhandhuka in Criminal Case No. 369 of 1988, dated 15.11.2000 and as confirmed by the learned 3rd Joint District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2000, dated 16th May, 2002 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 (1) and 16 (1) (A) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, are hereby quashed and set-aside. Bail bond, if any, stands canceled. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the accused. Registry to return the R&P to the concerned trial Court forthwith.