JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 8-5-1978 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Deedwana after obtaining leave from this Court. By the aforesaid judgment the learned Magistrate, had acquitted the respondents Munir Deen, D.D. Charan and R.D. Gujar of the charge Under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. A complaint was filed in the court to the effect that on 29-8-1974 Food Inspector Shri Hari Krishan inspected shop No. 55 at Ladnu where the respondents were selling wheat. On suspecting the wheat to be adulterated the Food Inspector took sample and conducted all the necessary formalities. Out of the three bottles containing the sample one was given to Munir Deen. One of the bottles containing the sample was sent to Public Analyst and the Public Analyst opined that the wheat was adulterated as it contained sand dust and pieces of stones and was also damaged by ants. After obtaining sanction from the Administrator Municipality, Ladnu complaint was filed in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana. The learned Magistrate charge sheeted the respondents for the offence Under Section 16 of the Act and recorded the plea. On all of them denying the allegation, the learned Magistrate proceeded with the trial. The Food Inspector examined himself and two more witnesses, namely, Bheekamchand and Shreepal to substantiate the prosecution case. All the three respondents in their statement Under Section 313 Cr. PC denied the allegations levelled against them. Munir Deen took the plea that the wheat in question was supplied to him by the other respondents and he sold the wheat as it was supplied to him. The other two respondents, while denying the allegations submitted that the wheat in question was not supplied by them and therefore they were not responsible for adulteration of wheat even if any. Munir Deen appeared as D.W. 1 to substantiate the plea taken by him. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents on the ground that the sanction of prosecuting the respondents was not according to law and the reason for this conclusion was that the sanction did not disclose that the concerned authority had applied its mind before according sanction for prosecution. The learned Magistrate in view of that finding passed the judgment of acquittal which dissatisfied the prosecution. Hence the present appeal 3. The learned Magistrate in view of that finding passed the judgment of acquittal which dissatisfied the prosecution. Hence the present appeal 3. I have heard Mr. Vimal Mathur, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. R.G. Purohit, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. No body has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the sanction does not suffer from any infirmity and the finding of the trial court in that regard is erroneous. 5. On the other hand Mr. R.G. Purohit submitted that Section 20 requires that the competent authority may apply its mind and find out whether it is a fit case for prosecuting a person or not. As such. Mr. Purohit stressed that the sanction should not be a mere formality but should disclose that the authority has looked into the matter. Section 20 is mandatory in nature. It imposes a bar for prosecution for an offence under the Act not being an offence Under Section s 16 or 16. In absence of a sanction by the Central Government or State Government or a person authorised in that behalf by general or special order by the Central Government or State Government. It has not been disputed that the Administrator, Municipality, Ladnu, had authority to accord sanction under this section. The question is whether from the perusal of the sanction Ex. P. 6 it can be inferred that the sanctioning authority had applied mind before according sanction for the prosecution of the respondents. Ex. P 6 is a faint typed copy in which the blanks have been filled up by hand. Names of all the three respondents have been mentioned there in as the persons who have been found selling wheat on 29-8-1974. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution case is that Munirdeen was selling wheat at shop No. 55 at Ladnu and the other two respondents were employees at the Ware-house at Deedwana and the allegation against them was that they had supplied wheat to Munirdeen. Despite that the sanction speaks of all the three persons selling wheat. This fact has been rightly taken in view by the learned Magistrate in forming an opinion that the authority concerned had not applied mind before according sanction. 6. Despite that the sanction speaks of all the three persons selling wheat. This fact has been rightly taken in view by the learned Magistrate in forming an opinion that the authority concerned had not applied mind before according sanction. 6. Another fact which appealed the learned Magistrate was that the residence of all the three respondents has been mentioned as Ladnu where as two of them were residents of Deedwana. On careful perusal of Ex. P 6 I am in agreement with the learned Magistrate that the filled-up blanks in the faint typed paper do not suggest that the concerned authority had looked into the material relating to the case and it was after application of mind that the sanction was accorded. The object of enactment of Section 20 is to put the offences under this Act into a special category requiring sanction before prosecuting a person involved. It is to make sure that before prosecuting a person for an offence under the Act a higher authority has to satisfy that the case was fit for prosecution. Such an important provision of the Act meant for safeguard of the interest of the person alleged against should not be lightly taken by the authority empowered to accord sanction. In the present case the allegation against Munirdeen is different from the remaining two respondents. In the sanction all the three have been put in the same line and it is joint sanction of all the three and no distinction has been shown between the case of one from another. In this view of the matter the learned Magistrate has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the sanction is not proper and according to the provisions of Section 20. The judgment based on sound reasoning calls for no interference. 7. The appeal filed by the State has no merit and is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******