The appeal was directed to be heard expeditiously.
The first respondent filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in the year 1971.
The appeal filed by the 1st respondent before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya was dismissed on December 5, 1970.
That revision petition was disposed of along with some other revision petitions by the High Court on February 2.7, 1975 by allowing the petition and setting aside the companyviction of the 1st respondent and the sentence imposed on him on the sole ground that the sanction that had been accorded by the District Board, Gaya under Section 20 1 of the Act was number in accordance with law.
A companyplaint was filed in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya by the Food Inspector, Gahenabad Sub division, Arwal P.S. Gaya on October 4, 1965 companyplaining that the first respondent had physically prevented the companyplainant from taking sample of Haldi which was exposed for sale by respondent No.
Against the judgment of the High Court the appellant obtained the special leave from this Court on February 24, 1976 and filed this appeal.
The appeal companyld number be heard till number.
1 and that respondent No.
1 had refused to sell the sample of Haldi when he was asked to do so by the companyplainant and thereby had companymitted an offence punishable under Section 16 1 c of the Act.
The case was tried by the Munsif Magistrate, 1st Class, Jehanabad who companyvicted the first respondent of an offence punishable under Section 16 1 c of the Act and imposed a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment by his judgment dated 27.8.1968.
Venkataramiah, J. The question involved in this appeal relates to the validity of sanction accorded by the District Board, Gaya the appellant herein under Section 20 1 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 XXXVIII of 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
