JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - These two revisions were heard together and are hereby disposed of by this one judgment as identically similar questions arise for consideration in both these revisions and the parties in both the cases are the same. 2. The Petitioner stands convicted u/s 16(i)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for storing for sale adulterated lozenges in his shop, and he has filed Criminal Revision No. 172 of 1971 against the judgment and order of conviction confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 1969. He has also been convicted under the same provision of the Act for storing for sale In his shop adulterated Harad Dal, and he has preferred Criminal Revision No. 173 of 1971 against the judgment of conviction confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 102/201 of 1970/69. 3. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has contended that the prosecution of the Petitioner was bad in law, as the sanction, as required u/s 20 of the Act, was not obtained for the institution of the two cases against the Petitioner. In that connection he contended that the concerned authorities or the person duly authorized under the law did not institute the cases or sanction the prosecution of the Petitioner in both the two cases. 4. Mr. A. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Puri-Municipality the opposite party in both these two revisions, drew my attention to the Gazette Notification No. 19016 H. dated the 3rd November, 1965, by which the State Government has authorised all the Health Officers attached to the Municipalities and Notified Area Councils in the State, and in the absence of a Health Officer attached to such local authority the District Health Officers within their respective jurisdictions, to sanction prosecution by a written order for offences under the Act. Accordingly, as per Section 20 of the Act, the State Government or the Puri Municipality or the Health Officer attached to that Municipality, who, as per the aforesaid Gazette Notification, has been authorised in this behalf by the State Government, could have filed or given ?the written consent? for the institution of these two cases against the Petitioner. 5. In the prosecution reports in both the two cases it is stated that the necessary sanction of the Health Officer, Puri Municipality, was obtained as required u/s 20 of the Act But in Exts. for the institution of these two cases against the Petitioner. 5. In the prosecution reports in both the two cases it is stated that the necessary sanction of the Health Officer, Puri Municipality, was obtained as required u/s 20 of the Act But in Exts. 3 and 4 which are said to be the written consent for the prosecution of the Petitioner, it stated The Puri Municipal Council hereby, after considering all the materials on record, accords sanction as required u/s 20(1) of the said Act for the prosecution against Sri Sanatan Sahu and hereby authorise Sri Abhoy Charan Mohanty, Food Inspector, Puri Municipality to be the complainant to file the prosecution. So though in the prosecution report it is stated that the Health Officer has actually given the written consent for the prosecution of the Petitioner Exts. 3 and 4 do not state so and on the contrary it is stated therein that it was the Puri Municipal Council who sanctioned the prosecution. Again p.w. 8 Sri Abhoy Charan Mohanty, the Food Inspector of the Puri Municipality, in his deposition, has stated that he obtained sanction for the prosecution from the Health Officer of the Puri Municipality, and Exts. 3 and 4 are the requisite sanction for the prosecution of the above-mentioned two cases. But from the contents of Exts. 3 and 4 as quoted and seen above, it cannot be said that the Health Officer gave ?the written consent? for prosecuting the Petitioner in these two cases. 6. u/s 20 of the Act either the authorities of the authorised persons specifically mentioned in that section must give ?the written consent? to file the prosecution. So long such written consent is not given by any such authority or person, the Court cannot prosecute a person for an offence under this Act. Moreover, ?the written consent? required u/s 20 of the Act is certainly not an empty formality. It should Indicate that the authority or the person giving the written consent was himself satisfied shout the correctness of the allegations against the accused. So the Court before proceeding with the case must be satisfied that the authority or the competent person, as per Section 20 of the Act, has actually applied its mind and has given the consent required under that section. So long as the Court cases not find any such ?written consent? So the Court before proceeding with the case must be satisfied that the authority or the competent person, as per Section 20 of the Act, has actually applied its mind and has given the consent required under that section. So long as the Court cases not find any such ?written consent? to support the prosecution report it cannot take cognizance of an offence under this Act and consequently cannot proceed with the trial of an offence for an offence under this Act. 7. In this case, as discussed above, it is difficult to know who actually has given the written consent. In Exts. 3 and 4 it is state that it is the Puri Municipal Council, who, after considering all the materials on record, accorded sanction as required u/s 20 of the Act. But the Food Inspector in his prosecution report as well as in his deposition in Court states that it was the Health Officer who accorded the necessary sanction for the prosecution of these two cases. The Health Officer who has signed Exts. 3 and 4 cases not state that he himself gave the required written consent to prosecute the Petitioner in these two cases. On the contrary it is stated in Exts. 3 and 4 that it was the Puri Municipal Council who accorded the aforesaid sanction. The resolution of the Puri Municipal Council is not on record, and in Exts. 3 and 4 it is not stated as to when and by what resolution of the Puri Municipal Council the aforesaid sanction was accorded. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Puri Municipality, could not show anything to the effect that the Health Officer had the authority to certify resolutions of the Municipal Council and that too without any reference to their number, date and other specifications. From the mere statement in Exts. 3 and 4 as quoted above, it is extremely difficult to say that ?the written consent? required u/s 20 of the Act was actually and duly given by the Municipal Council to prosecute the Petitioner. 8. From the above anomaly it is difficult to ascertain if any body at all actually applied his mind to give the written consent required u/s 20 of the Act to prosecute the Petitioner. required u/s 20 of the Act was actually and duly given by the Municipal Council to prosecute the Petitioner. 8. From the above anomaly it is difficult to ascertain if any body at all actually applied his mind to give the written consent required u/s 20 of the Act to prosecute the Petitioner. Accordingly, in the absence of the proper written consent in these two cases, the prosecution against the Petitioner for an offence under this Act is legally not maintainable. On this score alone, the conviction of the Petitioner in both the above mentioned cases is liable to be set aside. 9. In view of the above finding, the other contentions raised by Mr. Mohanty, dealing with the merits of the case on the factual aspects, need not be discussed. In the result, the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 16(i)(a) of the Act in both the above-mentioned cases and the sentences passed against him in those two cases are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the same.