JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-respondent, Rodu Lal, vide judgment dated 21-6-1977, has been acquitted of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Against this judgment of acquittal the Municipal Council, Ajmer, has filed this appeal. 2. Shri S.K. Jindal, the learned Advocate for the Municipal Council, Ajmer, is fair enough in abandoning the contention regarding interpretation of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules as there is finding of the trial court against him that the additional sample of sale was proved not to be sent, but insisted on the correct interpretation of Section 20 in view of the judgment of this Court in M.C., Ajmer v. Sadulla, AIR 1969 Raj. 39 3. This has been reiterated again in recent judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Har Dayal 1984 RLR 277 in which authority of Mahadev v. State 1971 RLW 135 has been over ruled. 39 3. This has been reiterated again in recent judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Har Dayal 1984 RLR 277 in which authority of Mahadev v. State 1971 RLW 135 has been over ruled. Head notes (b), (c), and (d) read as under: (b) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 20--Order passed by sanctioning authority, administrative in nature--Application of mind to facts and satisfaction as to existence of prima facie case--Presumption under Section 114(a), Evidence Act--Burden of proof--Shifting of--Principles, explained--(Evidence Act, 1872 Section 114); If the order of sanction contains an express recital to the effect that the sanctioning authority had applied his mind to the facts of the case and had satisfied himself that a prima facie case existed for the alleged offender being prosecuted, court would presume that the conditions, viz., application of mind to the facts and satisfaction about existence of prima facie case, are fulfilled and then it would be for the accused to rebut the presumption if the accused is able to bring circumstances on record indicating that the recital contained in the order of sanction regarding application of mind and satisfaction as to prima facie is not correct or creating reasonable doubt as to the correctness of the recital to the satisfaction of the court, the Court may not act upon the recital till the prosecution adduces other evidence to court's satisfaction to dispel the doubt; (c) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 20--Order or sanction for prosecution--Printed forms containing recital as to application of mind to facts by sanctioning authority and his satisfaction about existence of prima facie case--Form, not filled by authority himself--Held, not sufficient to rebut presumption under Section 114, Evidence Act and as such sanction, valid--Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114--(1971 RLW 135, over-ruled). (d) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Sections 7 & 16 Sessions Judge discharged accused on ground that 'sanction' was invalid--State preferred appeal before High Court which was treated as revision--High Court held that 'sanction' was valid, but did not set aside such discharge because accused was small vendor of 'Kulfi' and incident, 14 years old. 4. Even earlier view was the same in Municipal Council, Jaipur v. Sewan Das AIR 1971 Raj. 5 . 4. Even earlier view was the same in Municipal Council, Jaipur v. Sewan Das AIR 1971 Raj. 5 . Head note of which reads as under: "Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (1954), Section 20--Institution of prosecution by Food Inspector authorised by Municipality by general order, is valid--It cannot be said that in every case prosecution should be instituted by a special order of the local authority. 5. Now coming to the present case. The accused-respondent is a milk vendor. The adulteration of milk was held to be proved. The acquittal was based on the twin grounds that, the prosecution was not done after having proper authoritative sanction and that, additional sample of seal was not sent with the sample of milk for chemical analysis. 6. Learned Counsel for the accused is also very fair enough to concede that so far as the interpretation of Section 20 is concerned. Sadulla's decision holds the field even today and, therefore, the correct position of law is according to the principles laid down in that judgment and to that extent, the judgment of the trial court deserves to be modified. 7. However, that would not make any difference because additional lapse or flaw of non-compliance of Rule 18 is still fatal for the prosecution. 8. Consequently, with the above clarification about legal position in respect of the interpretation of Section 20 as put in Sadulla's decision (supra), this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******