JUDGMENT S.K. Kaul, J. - This is an appeal by State against the order of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki, who had acquitted the accused-respondent of the charge punishable under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The prosecution story is that on 11th of Nov. 1976 at about 8.00 a.m. near the big temple of Safdarganj, the accused-respondent was found selling milk. The Food Inspector took the sample of seven hundred and half millilitre of milk and paid a sum of Rs. 1.50 paise as price of the sample. Relevant papers were prepared in that connection. The receipt was given to the accused-respondent. The sample was divided into three parts and after mixing formalin these phials in which these samples were kept were properly sealed. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst for report The report of the Public Analyst was that the sample was deficient in non-fatty solids by 10 per cent. Thereafter sanction of the Chief Medical Office was obtained and then the accused-respondent on the basis of a complaint filed, was asked to stand his trial, on cognizance being taken by the Magistrate, under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. The defence of the accused was complete denial. 4. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused-respondent on two grounds. The first ground was that independent witnesses were not examined. The second ground was that not proper sanction for the prosecution of the accused-respondent had been obtained and in that view of the matter he acquitted the accused-respondent. It is in these circumstances that the State has come up in appeal to this Court. 5. The trial Court appears to have forgottea the consistent view of the Court that even the evidence of departmental witnesses including the Food Inspector in such cases is sufficient when it corroborates the documentary evidence of sale which is to be found in this case inasmuch as the receipt was given to the accused-respondent of the sale of milk. The relevant documents were prepared and he was also given relevant papers so much so that later on he moved the Court to send the sample to the Director for analysis. The relevant documents were prepared and he was also given relevant papers so much so that later on he moved the Court to send the sample to the Director for analysis. In this case the prosecution examined Jagdish Singh, Food Inspector and Shri Ram, Sanitary Supervisor in proof of sale of milk and their evidence should have been accepted as correct in the back-ground of the circumstances noted above because I find that the accused-respondent signed Ext. Ka.1 which is form VI, Ext. Ka 2 which is receipt and Ext. Ka.3 which is a memo, all that was done by the Food Inspector on the spot. The learned counsel for the accused argued before me that since the Director found that the milk contained 8.2% solids non-fat it fell short by only 0.3% and this insignificant difference should be ignored and the milk should not be deemed to be adulterated. The rules prescribe that for cow and buffalo milk, in Appendix B, the milk fat has to be 4.5 while milk solids non-fat has to be 8.5. There is the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1978 (1) FAC 63 Prem Das v. State wherein it was clearly held that, "since in the instant case the percentage of non-fatty solids was less than the prescribed minimum for cow milk, the mixture of cow milk and buffalo milk was adulterated within the meaning of section 2(1) (i), and the accused was guilty under section 16. "The decision of a Single Judge on this aspect cannot overrule this Full Bench decision which holds good unless it is overruled by a larger Bench. "The decision of a Single Judge on this aspect cannot overrule this Full Bench decision which holds good unless it is overruled by a larger Bench. The recent decisions of this Court were cited before me by the learned counsel for the accused namely Ram Swaroop v. State reported in 1979 (I) FAC 15, wherein Mathura Prasad Saxena, J. held that, "If fatty contents are all right and sample is deficient only in non-fatty solids, it will not necessarily mean that the sample was adulterated." A Bench decision of this Court Kadam Singh v. State Criminal Revision No. 2012 of 1972, decided on 6-1-1978 reported in 1978 (I) FAC 160 also was noted in this judgment of Mathura Prasad Saxena, J. but with respect I am of the view that in view of the Full Bench decision quoted by the of our own High Court on this aspect, neither the decision of a Single Judge nor the decision of a Bench of this Court can be taken to be a law for the proposition because these decisions cannot overrule the Full Bench decision. In fact, with respect I follow the Full Bench decision and it is not necessary to refer this question to a larger Bench because in my view the object of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is to put a stop to adulteration especially of milk. When standards are prescribed by the Rules under the Act, a sample has to come up to those standards and any deficiency either in fatty solids or in non-fatty solids would amount to adulteration within the meaning of the Act and for that there can be no escape from the law. Even a margin of 0.3% in my view would not make the sample in this connection not adulterated. 6. The question now arises whether the sanction in this case was properly accorded by the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki or not. The sanction is Ext Ka. 7.1 find that this sanction is accorded on a prepared form so much so that only name of the accused, his residence and rule under section 7 have to be incorporated. The remaining things are in a printed form so much so that even perusal of the documents which is essential in according sanction also appears in a printed form. 7.1 find that this sanction is accorded on a prepared form so much so that only name of the accused, his residence and rule under section 7 have to be incorporated. The remaining things are in a printed form so much so that even perusal of the documents which is essential in according sanction also appears in a printed form. The details in this form are mentioned in Hindi script and these are in a different ink. The Chief Medical Officer signed this printed form in English. When I compared the letters 'Ja' and 'Ga' in Hindi appearing on Ext. Ka. 7 with these letters appearing on Ext. Ka. 6, it appears that the same person who wrote out Ext. Ka. 6 appears to have written the Hindi script of this Ext. Ka. 7. The sanction that has to be accorded in such a case was deliberately introduced by the framers of the Act so that the officer concerned who accorded sanction should himself peruse the documents and should come to a conclusion whether an offence under the provisions of this Act could be said to have been committed by the accused. If sanctions have to be on a printed form in which some details have to be mentioned and signatures have to be appended the very object of incorporating the provisions of sanction in the Act would be defeated. A duty is cast upon the sanctioning authorities to scrutinise the papers and come to an independent finding on their own that prima facie on the perusal of the documents an offence can be said to have been made out This duty has to be performed by them in all seriousness If the sanctioning documents are got printed and some details have to be incorporated in the shape of the name and residence of the accused and the rules of the Act, that would be defeating the very object and I cannot approve of such a method in the accord of sanction It is not a case where the sanctioning officer dictated the sanctioning document to his steno or to a typist which was typed out and then signed by him. That is permissible in law. That is permissible in law. In the instant case before me, as noted above, it appears that the department has got this form printed and it was probably put in the ordinary course before the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki who without caring to peruse the documents merely signed it when the other details probably were filled up much earlier before this document was put before him. I am in respectful agreement with the observation of Bakshi, J. in the case of Krishna Lal v. State reported in 1978 (II) FAC 130 that "In all fairness to the citizen where liberty is at stake and who is liable to serious consequences of prosecution under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, blank columns of this form granting sanction, should normally be filled in by the Medical Officer of Health himself, unless for adequate reasons it cannot be done " I would go to the extent of remarking that the practice of according sanction on printed form like Ext. Ka. 7 should be put a stop to and in future the sanctioning authority either should itself write out the sanction or dictate the sanction under his supervision and then sign the same. If such printed forms which are probably filled up beforehand when these are put up for signatures before the sanctioning authority are allowed to be used it would be depriving the accused of getting his case scrutinised by the sanctioning authority who himself should peruse the documents and thereafter give sanction. In this case, therefore, I agree with the finding of the trial court that no proper sanction for the prosecution of the accused was obtained and as such his conviction cannot be recorded under the Act; with the result that his acquittal by the trial court cannot be interfered with by me. 7. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal and maintain the order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused-respondent. The bail-bonds furnished by the accused-respondent shall be discharged.