JUDGMENT R.R. Rastogi, J. - A complaint was made by Sri R.K. Gupta, Food Inspector Municipal Board, Fatehpur under section 10/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the applicant Bhoora. The case taken in the complaint was that on 3rd day of May, 1972 at about 6 P.M. Bhoora was selling and exposing for sale milk in two buckets at his shop in Mohalla Chaudharana. The Inspector inspected the milk and suspecting that it was adulterated milk asked the accused to sell 660 M.L. milk for sample on cash payment. The accused refused to do so and forcibly pushed away the Jamadar. Certain witnesses were said to be present at that time. The Food Inspector then submitted his report (Ex. Ka. 1) to the District Medical Officer of Health Fatehpur on 20-8-1972. It was alleged that the District Medical Officer of Health accorded sanction for the prosecution of the accused (Ex. Ka. 2). 2. The accused denied the prosecution case. According to him the Inspector asked him to give him Rs. 10/- per month to which he did not agree and hence the complaint was falsely made against him He further stated that the witnesses gave evidence against him because of the pressure of Food Inspector. 3. The prosecution examined (P.W. 1) R.K. Gupta, Food Inspector (P.W. 2) Sri Ram Saran Singh Hawaldar and (P.W. 3) Ranjit, while the accused examined (D.W. 1) Master Abdulla. The learned Magistrate, on a consideration of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty under section 10/16 of the Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to 6 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In the event of failure to pay the fine three months further R.I. was awarded. 4. The accused went up in appeal before the Sessions Judge Fatehpur, but remained unsuccessful and hence filed this revision application before this Court. 5. Two submissions were made before me on behalf of the applicant (1) that the sanction was obtained for the offence said to have been committed on 3rd May, 1972 while in evidence the date of occurrence has been mentioned as 13th May, 1972. 5. Two submissions were made before me on behalf of the applicant (1) that the sanction was obtained for the offence said to have been committed on 3rd May, 1972 while in evidence the date of occurrence has been mentioned as 13th May, 1972. Thus there was no proper sanction for the offence alleged to have been committed on 13-5-1972; and secondly that the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind before giving the sanction for the prosecution of the accused. In my opinion both these submissions carry considerable force. Section 20(1) of the Act provides as under : - "No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority." The proviso to this section is not relevant for the present purpose. It would appear, therefore, that for the prosecution for an offence under this Act the requisite condition is the existence of sanction of the Central Government, the State Government or the local authority or a person authorised in this behalf. The existence of such sanction is the condition precedence for the prosecution of a person for an offence under this Act. In case this condition is not fulfilled, the defect would go to the very root of the case and would vitiate the trial. 6. I shall now first discuss the second contention made on behalf of the accused. 7. Ex. Ka 1 is the report which was submitted by the Food Inspector on 21-8-1972 to the District Medical Officer of Health. Just below to it there is Ex. Ka. 2 purporting to be the sanction given by District Medical Officer of Health. Both these documents are on one and the same page. They appear to have been typed out on the same machine. The lower part, that is, Ex. Ka 2 was meant to be filled in by the office of the District Medical Officer of Health. Curiously enough "Sankhya p. fa" and Dinank" are blank. The District Medical Officer of Health has only appended his signature as also put the date. The date is the same as appearing below the signature of the Food Inspector. This Ex. Ka. Ka 2 was meant to be filled in by the office of the District Medical Officer of Health. Curiously enough "Sankhya p. fa" and Dinank" are blank. The District Medical Officer of Health has only appended his signature as also put the date. The date is the same as appearing below the signature of the Food Inspector. This Ex. Ka. 2 reads as follows : - "Mai Shri Bhoora Putra Chuttu Niwasi Chaudharana Ke Virudh Mukadma chalane ke liye P.F. Act ki dhara 20 ke antargat sweekriti deta hun. Mukadma chalaya jaye. This entire writing has been typed out evidently in the office of the Food Inspector himself. The question arises how he could presume that the District Medical Officer of Health would give the sanction for the prosecution? Thus there is intrinsic evidence existing in the form of the document itself which goes to show that the Food Inspector presumed that the District Medical Officer of Health would give sanction for the prosecution of the accused and further the District Medical Officer of Health signed it without even going through it. He did not at all apply his mind to the facts of the case with a view to satisfy himself whether or not it was a fit case in which sanction should be given for the prosecution of the accused. I am inclined to agree, therefore, that it was purely a mechanical sanction given by the District Medical Officer of Health without applying his mind to the facts of the case. 8. No particular form of sanction is necessary for it is necessary that any reason for the award of the sanction should be given. None the less there should be something to show that the sanctioning authority had applied his mind before giving the sanction. Similar question arose in Chunni Lal v. State, 1974 F.A.C. 238. In that case a sanction had been granted in a printed form and it had been mentioned that authority concerned had examined the record and had satisfied itself about the desirability to prosecute the offender, it was held that it could not be said that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the facts of the case. 9. Thus there was no valid sanction given for the prosecution of the accused as required by section 20(1) of the Act and the prosecution was hence unauthorised. 10. 9. Thus there was no valid sanction given for the prosecution of the accused as required by section 20(1) of the Act and the prosecution was hence unauthorised. 10. Coming to the other point it appears to me that there was some tampering with the record. The tampering took place when the record was in the custody of the trial court or the appellate court and the accused could surely lake benefit of it. The offence is said to have taken place on 3rd May, 1971 and sanction was given for the prosecution of the accused for that offence, in charge the date was mentioned as 3rd May but in the statement of Food Inspector in the very first sentence as also in the statement of Ram Saran (P.W. 2), the date of incident was given out as 13-5-1972. In the statement of accused under section 34 Cr. PC the same date was mentioned. Surely there is some overwriting inasmuch as digit 1 appears to have been added before the digit at all the aforesaid three places. This point was raised on behalf of the accused before the lower appellate court but it did not dispose of this question after a careful examination of the record as also on merit. It rejected it by observing that it was "highly trivial". The approach was thus not proper. If it was a mistake the question was how and in what circumstances it occurred. Certainly it was not an accidental mistake. In my opinion, therefore, the accused is certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt at least and any way as held above prosecution was not duly authorised. 11. In view of the fore going discussion, the conviction and sentence cannot be upheld, and are hence set aside. The accused is on bail. He need not surrender and his bail bonds are cancelled. If the fine has been realised from him the same will be refunded.