JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Gullu Mal has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 21-7-1975 passed by the IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly, remanding the case to the trial court for fresh trial according to law. 2. The revisionist was prosecuted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the ground that he was selling Haldi powder which was adulterated. Its sample was taken and sent to the Public Analyst. 3. The trial court convicted the revisionist and sentenced him to one year's R.I and to a fine of Rs. 1000/- and default of its payment to six months R.I. In appeal the learned lower appellate court found that one ominbus question was out to the accused under section 342, Cr. P.C. in respect of three distinct matters viz whether he was keeping the Haldi powder for in the hotel, whether the Food Inspector had checked the same and taken his sample and, lastly, whether the Haldi powder was meant for sale. Since the examination of the accused under section 342, Cr. P.C. was not proper and it prejudiced the accused his conviction was set aside and the case was sent back for re-trial. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the sanction accorded in this case was not in accordance with the law and as the very basis of the prosecution goes away no useful purpose would be served by holding a re-trial. The revisionist cannot be convicted under any circumstance and be should not be harassed. There is force in this contention because the sanction accorded by the Municipal Medical Officer of Health is on a printed performance. Its blank spaces were filled in by the clerk of the Medical Officer of Health. The latter simply affixed his signatures on it. There is nothing in the sanction to warrant that the Medical Officer of Health was aware of the contents of the sanction or had applied his mind to the same. He did not appear in the witness box to depose to this fact. In the case of Krishan Lal v. State, 1978 (II) F.A C. 130 it was held that blank columns on printed forms should normally be filled in by the Medical Officer of Health himself unless for adequate reasons it cannot be done. He did not appear in the witness box to depose to this fact. In the case of Krishan Lal v. State, 1978 (II) F.A C. 130 it was held that blank columns on printed forms should normally be filled in by the Medical Officer of Health himself unless for adequate reasons it cannot be done. The details in the form filled in were in one type of ink whereas signatures oi sanctioning authority were in another type of ink. Such a circumstance creates a reasonable doubt whether sanctioning authority had at all applied his mind. It is the duty of the prosecution to produce Medical Officer of Health to explain doubts and infirmities arising therein. In the instant case the blank spaces in the sanction have been filled up in one ink while the signatures of the Municipal Medical Officer of Health exist in another ink. The Medical Officer of Health was not produced to explain the circumstances under which the sanction was given. Such a sanction in view of the aforesaid pronouncement has been held to be invalid, sanction also being invalid proceedings were void abinitio and under no circumstance conviction can be recorded on its basis. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served even if the case is sent back for retrial to the trial court. 5. The revision application is allowed and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 21-7-1975 is set aside. The judgment and order dated 9-12-1974 passed by the trial court convicting the revisionist under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence awarded thereunder are also set aside.