JUDGMENT 1. This revision is directed against the order of Sri P. N. Lal, learned Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, dated 20-3-1982 by which criminal appeal No. 193 of 1981 preferred by the revisionist was dismissed and his conviction under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954) as recorded by Sri Subhash Chandra, Special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar in criminal case no. 736/9 of 1981, under Section 7/16 of the aforesaid Act was affirmed. His sentence of nine months R. I. and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default further R. I. for four months was also affirmed. 2. Briefly stated prosecution case was that Ram Singh, Food-Inspector PW 1, on 30-4-1979 at about 8 or 10 a. m. found the revisionist carrying milk in cannes for sale. In front of the shop of Abdul Qarim in Thana Bhawan town the food-inspector purchased 660 ml. milk for Rs. 1.24 Paise after disclosing his identity. It was given out as buffalo milk. After sampling the milk in accordance with the Rules the milk was sent to Public Analyst who found the milk deficient in fatty contents which was detected as 5.7 per cent non-fatty solids were found as 8.3 per cent. There was deficiency of 8 per cent in non-fatty solids vide report dated 31-5-1979 Ext. ka-7. After all the requirements of the Rules were satisfied the revisionist was sentup. 3. Prosecution examined Ram Singh, Food-Inspector, PW 1, Abdul Qarim PW 3 on the point of sampling, Mool Chand Garg clerk of the Office of Chief Medical Officer, PW 2, to prove the dispatch of the report of Public Analyst by the Office of the Chief Medical Officer alongwith the letter to satisfy the requirements of Section 13 (2) of the aforesaid Act. 4. Prosecution case was testified by the Food-Inspector, Ram Singh PW 1, and Abdul Qarim, PW 3 who also tried to help the revisionist and was declared hostile. The contention of the accused was that the milk was not meant for sale ; he was carrying the milk to the house of Pradhan Devi Sahai in connection with a marriage. 5. Liyaqat, DW 1, and Devi Sahai DW 3, were examined in defence. 6. Both the courts below believed the prosecution version. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. 7. 5. Liyaqat, DW 1, and Devi Sahai DW 3, were examined in defence. 6. Both the courts below believed the prosecution version. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. 7. The first contention put forward was that there was no compliance of Section 1.3 (2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as the report of Public Analyst was not timely sent at the complete address of revisionist. 8. On this point there is statement of Sri Mool Chand Garg, PW 2 who testified that the copy of the aforesaid report was sent at the correct address of the revisionist on 5-11-1979. He also referred to the registered letter dispatched on 9-11-1979. Certified copy of that letter Ext. ka-8 is on record. However, this point could not be successfully pressed before main view of the recent pronouncement in Tulsi Ram v. State of M. P., AIR 1985 SC 299 = 1985 ACrR 28 which laid "The expression "immediately" in Rule 9-A is intended to convey a sence of continuity rather than urgency. What must be done is to forward the report to the person from whom the sample was taken at the earliest opportunity, so as to faciliate the exercise of the statutory right under Section 13 (2) in good and, sufficient time before the prosecution commences leading evidence. Non-compliance with Rule 9-A is not fatal. It is a question of prejudice. " 9. It was further observed at page 300 :- "The real question is, was the Public Analyst's Report sent to the accused sufficiently early to enable him to properly defend himself by giving him an opportunity at the outset to apply to the court to send one of the samples to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. If after receiving the Public Analyst's Report he never sought to apply to the court to have the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory, as in the instant case, he may not be heard to complain of the delay in the receipt of the report by him, unless of course, he is able to establish some other prejudice." 10. In the instant case also the revisionist did not care to get the sample examined by the Director or Central Food Laboratory. In the instant case also the revisionist did not care to get the sample examined by the Director or Central Food Laboratory. Learned Sessions Judge has correctly found that residence of revisionist was village Sohanjini and not Sohanjini Khera, Sohanjini Tagan or Sohanjini Umarpur, and the registered letter was sent at full and complete address and if it was not correctly addressed its dispatch was sufficient as was held in Chhotey Lal v. State reported in Prevention of Food Adulteration Case, 1981 page 35-38. 11. The next point which was pressed before me was that there was no valid sanction for prosecution of the revisionist and in view of Section 20 of the aforesaid Act no prosecution for any offence under the aforesaid Act could be instituted except by or with the written consent of the authority concerned. 12. In this connection I may refer to the consent Ext. ka-5 accorded by Chief Judicial Magistrate in this case. This consent occurs at the back of letter Ext. ka-4 filled in by Food- Inspector himself. It is as below : "Papers seen. Consent accorded to launch the prosecution under Section 7/16 of PFA Act against Sri Iqram s/o Habeb r/o Sohanjani, P. S. Thanabhawn, Distt.Muzaffarnagar by virtue of power conferred on me under Section 20 of the PFA Act and Govt. Notification no. 6001/16-10-722/55 dated 18-9-1976 the prosecution be instituted by Sri Ram Singh, Food Inspector, PHC, Thana-bhawan against him in the court. Sd/-(Sushil Kumar) Local Health Authority Muzaffarnagar 17-9-79." 13. It is significant to note that Sri Sushil Kumar did not come forward to testify about the papers perused by him and application of his mind prior to according the sanction ; the person who typed this sanction has not been examined. The signature of the authority concerned were not proved by the Food Inspector Ram Singh, PW 1 who actually referred to the document by stating that he was authorised to launch the prosecution by Chief Medical Officer vide Ext. ka-5. He did not testify that before according requisite sanction all the papers were laid by him before the Chief Medical Officer or Chief Medical Officer had seen all those papers before according the requisite sanction. Moolchand Garg clerk of that Office did not refer to this document at all. ka-5. He did not testify that before according requisite sanction all the papers were laid by him before the Chief Medical Officer or Chief Medical Officer had seen all those papers before according the requisite sanction. Moolchand Garg clerk of that Office did not refer to this document at all. Thus there is total absence of evidence on record to show that the sanctioning authority had applied his mind before according the sanction. The sanction required by Section 20 of the aforesaid Act for the prosecution of the accused is not a mere formality but it must appear from the sanction that the authority giving the sanction had applied its mind to the alleged commission of the offence by the accused-See Ram Chandra v. State, 1979 ALJ 952, Kishan Lal v. State, 1978 ACrR 265 and Ram Chandra v. State, 1979 ALJ 952, Kishan Lal v. State, 1978 ACrR 265 14. In Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 124 question arose about the nature of sanction which was to be accorded under Section 6 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It was observed at page 125 :- "The object of the provision for sanctions is that the authority giving the sanction should be able to consider for itself the evidence before it comes to a conclusion that the prosecution in the circumstances be sanctioned or forbidden. It should be clear from the form of the sanction that the sanctioning authority considered the evidence before it and after a consideration of all the circumstances of the case sanctioned the prosecution, and therefore unless the matter can be proved by other evidence, in the sanction itself, the fact should be referred to indicate that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case." In the instant case it has been shown that Ext. ka-5 was not proved to have been typed to the dictation of Chief Medical Officer but by some one else and so the defect goes to the root of the matter so as to vitiate the conviction. 15. The next contention was that the learned Magistrate who recorded the conviction was not empowered to try the cases summarily and so he had no jurisdiction to dispose of the case. 16. Learned Sessions Judge conceded that Mr. 15. The next contention was that the learned Magistrate who recorded the conviction was not empowered to try the cases summarily and so he had no jurisdiction to dispose of the case. 16. Learned Sessions Judge conceded that Mr. Batra was not specially empowered to try the cases summarily but he could entartain the case. Learned counsel for the State could not show that learned trial Magistrate was competent to dispose of this case in a summary fashion. Tt is further significant to note that it could not be shown by the prosecution that the trial Magistrate was specially empowered by the State Government to try the cases under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act summarily. So this defect also vitiates the trial-See Ganga Prasad v. State of U. P., 1982 PFA Cases 92 and Ram Chandra v. State, 1980 FAC (1) 334. I am in respectful agreement with the same view. For the aforesaid reasons I find that the conviction and sentence are not sustainable. 17. In the result revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Section 7/1.6 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He is on bail and need not surrender to his bonds. Fine need not be deposited. Revision allowed.