JUDGMENT R.B. Lal, J. - This appeal by special leave is directed against the order and judgment of acquittal dated 9. 5. 1977 passed by Sri K. P. Mathur, special Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that on 4. 12. 1973 at about 11. 30 A. M Sri Madan Gopal Misra, Food Inspector Nagar Maha-palika Allahabad found Mewa, respondent, carrying milk for sale in Khalasi Lines within the limits of Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. The Food Inspector purchased 660 ml. of milk on payment of price and after observing all the relevant rules and formalities, the milk was put in three phials in equal quantity and the phials were duly labelled and sealed. One phial was handed over to the respondent. One sample phial was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the sample contained 5.1 per cent fat and 7.8 per cent non-fatty solids. The sample was treated as adulterated and, therefore, the Nagar Swasthaya Adhikari filed a complaint against Mewa Lal respondent, for having committed an offence punishable under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly the Act). 3. The case of the accused was that he was carrying cow's milk for his own consumption. He examined himself in defence. 4. The learned Magistrate held that the sanction for prosecution was not given after applying mind to the facts of the case and, therefore, there was no compliance with the provisions of section 20 of the Act. He also held that there was no compliance with the mandatory provisions of Clause (j) of Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the Act. For these reasons he acquitted the accused. 5. The Nagar Swasthaya Adhikari did not feel satisfied and filed this appeal by special leave. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the opinion of a Division Bench of this Court given in Criminal Revision No. 1030 of 1977 Sumer Chand and others v. State (District Saharanpur) decided on 24th January, 1980 by Hon'ble P.N. Bakshi, J. reported in 1980 (1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 258 and has urged that the Division Bench had held that the provisions of Clause (j) of Rule 9 were only directory and not mandatory, though it was open to the accused to show that non-observance of those provisions had caused prejudice to him. The accused could not be acquitted on the simple ground that there was no compliance with the provisions of clause (j) of Rule 9. The learned Magistrate should have gone into the question whether the non-compliance of the aforesaid provisions had caused any prejudice to the accused. 7. The above submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is well founded. The learned counsel for the accused respondent has not been able to show any view contrary to the view of the Division Bench. Here it may be made clear that the opinion of the Division Bench was given on 4-1-1980 and thereafter P.N. Bakshi, J. had decided the aforesaid revision on 24-1-1980, in the light of the opinion of the Division Bench. Only the judgment of P.N. Bakshi, J. has been reported in 1980 (1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases, 258, and the opinion of the Division Bench has not been reported in the Journal. 8. The view of the Magistrate that the sanction was illegal because there was nothing to show that it was given after application of mind, was wholly erroneous. In the instant case, the complaint was filed under the signatures of the Nagar Swasthaya Adhikari himself and not by any other person who had been authorised by the Nagar Swasthaya Adhikari to file the complaint. Hence, the principle that sanction, if granted without application of mind, would be vitiated, was not applicable to the facts of the instant case. The Nagar Swasthaya Adhikari had been authorised by the State Government by a general order to file complaint under section 20 of the Act, No. question of giving sanction could arise in the case where the Nagar Swasthaya Adhikari had himself chosen to sign the complaint. 9. It appears that in March, 1974, Dr. Narendra Nath was the Nagar Swasthaya Adhikari of Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad and he had signed the complaint in that month. The complaint was actually filed in the court of the Magistrate in May, 1974. PW 2 who proved the signatures of Dr. Narendra Nath, could not say if the same person had continued as the Nagar Swasthaya Adhikari in May, 1974. It was necessary to obtain clarification on this point. This aspect was not gone into by the learned Magistrate. 10. PW 2 who proved the signatures of Dr. Narendra Nath, could not say if the same person had continued as the Nagar Swasthaya Adhikari in May, 1974. It was necessary to obtain clarification on this point. This aspect was not gone into by the learned Magistrate. 10. In view of what has been said above, the order of acquittal could not be based on the ground that the sanction given was without application of mind to the facts of the case. 11. In view of the above, both the grounds of acquittal relied upon by the learned Magistrate, were not well founded and the acquittal could not be based on those grounds. Hence, the order of acquittal cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the case be remanded to the lower court for a fresh trial according to law. The learned counsel for the accused respondent has also agreed with this submission because he also wants an opportunity to contest the case on other grounds which were not considered by the Magistrate. 13. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed ; the order of acquittal dated 9-5-1977 is set aside and the case is remanded to the court below for a fresh trial according to law after giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence. 14. This time the case will be tried by a competent Magistrate, other than Sri K.P. Mathur, Special Judicial Magistrate. The record of this case shall be sent back to the lower court at a vary early date.