JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Bijnor. Hence this revision. 2. According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector Sri G.C. Gupta, purchased a sample of milk from the shop of Babu Khan on 28-2-1977 at 9.15 a.m. in accordance with the provisions of law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, who reported that it was deficient in fat contents by 3 per cent. After obtaining sanction the applicant was prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. I have heard counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. I have very carefully scrutinised the documents on record. The applicants counsel has argued that the report of the Public Analyst was not before the sanctioning authority on the date when sanction was accorded for his prosecution. He, therefore, submits that the sanctioning authority has not applied his mind to the facts of the case. Therefore, the sanction is invalid. From a perusal of the evidence on the record, it is clear that the report of the Public Analyst is dated 15-11-1977. It was sent to the office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Bijnor. It was received by the Food Inspector from the office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health on 15th December, 1977. He found that there was discrepancy in the parentage of the accused, with the result that he returned the report to the Public Analyst for correction. On 28th March, 1978 the corrected report was again received back in the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health. In the meantime it appears that on 18th December, 1977 the Food Inspector had applied to the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Bijnor for granting sanction vide Ex. Ka-5. Sanction was accorded on 23rd March, 1978 vide Ex. Ka-6. Complaint was filed on 30th March, 1978 and a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused-applicant on 4-4-1978. 4. Ka-5. Sanction was accorded on 23rd March, 1978 vide Ex. Ka-6. Complaint was filed on 30th March, 1978 and a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused-applicant on 4-4-1978. 4. From the statement of the Food Inspector there can be no doubt that he received the report from the office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health on 15-12-1977 and that he sent the same for correction to the Public Analyst thereafter. On 18-12-1977 as already mentioned he had applied for sanction vide Ex. Ka-5. In this application, which has been duly signed by the Food Inspector Sri G.C. Gupta, four documents have been mentioned as attached thereto, namely :- (1) Notice in form No. VI..........1 (2) Cost Receipt.....................1 (3) Memo in form No. VII.....1 (4) P.A. Report No. 27697 dated 15-11-77-4 copies (sic) 5. I have carefully examined Ex. Ka-5 with the assistance of a magnifying glass. The fourth entry is clearly an over-writing. Its numbering appears to be 3 originally, which was subsequently changed to 4. The rest of the original writing is not decipherable. The words 4 copies are also not very clear, inasmuch as, there appears to be letter at the end of the word copies. Not a word has been stated by the Food Inspector in his statement that he had made four copies of the original report of the Public Analyst, which had been despatched by him for correction, and that he had attached these four copies along with his report Ex. Ka-5. In my opinion, entry No. 4 in Ex. Ka-5, is very suspicious and cannot be relied upon. There can be no doubt that the original report, having been sent for correction to the Public Analyst, was not before the Chief Medical Officer of Health at the time when he granted sanction on 23rd March, 1978. The corrected report was received back in the office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Bijnor on 28th March, 1978. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that copies of the report were actually sent alongwith Ex. Ka-5 to the sanctioning authority for consideration before granting sanction. The instant sanction therefore is vitiated in law inasmuch as the requisite material on which it should be based was not considered by the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Bijnor, at the time when he granted the sanction. Ka-5 to the sanctioning authority for consideration before granting sanction. The instant sanction therefore is vitiated in law inasmuch as the requisite material on which it should be based was not considered by the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Bijnor, at the time when he granted the sanction. In this view of the matter, the applicant could not be prosecuted in law on the basis of Ex. Ka-6. On account of this illegality the conviction of the applicant must be set aside. 6. This revision application is accordingly allowed. The conviction of the applicant and the sentence imposed upon him for the offence under Section 7/16 P.F.A. Act is set aside. He applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby discharged. The line, if already deposited, I shall be refunded to him.