JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—This appeal has been filed by the State against the order of acquittal in case No. 144/3 of 1982 decided on 21-9-1985 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the Food Inspector, Shri S. N. Sharma, took the sample on 14-10-1982 from the accused for analysis. After complying with the formalities as required, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst and the report was that the milk was adulterated. So, prosecution was launched against the accused. The trial court acquitted the accused. Hence this appeal. 3. Shri Praneet Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the accused, has asserted that the Food Inspector has associated only a Halwai by vocation although three or four customers were there in the shop at that time. This fact is denied by the Food Inspector. However, the fact remains that no independent person has been associated and in case the said Halwai9 is considered to be an independent person, the argument of the learned Counsel that such like persons are always under the influence of the Food Inspector, has a force. There was nothing to prevent the Food Inspector to Associate independent persons in place of witnesses against whom allegations of influence can be made. Such matters are not to be taken casually, rather the Food Inspector must proceed in the matter seriously and dextrously to avoid any criticism on this account. 4. This is an appeal against acquittal and the reasons given by the trial Judge cannot be considered so perverse to call for interference in appeal by this Court. 5. Shri Praneet Gupta has argued on the point of sanction. Perusal of the record shows that there is neither proper sanction nor the same has been legally proved By the Food Inspector (Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1985, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mussa, decided on January 6, 1989). 6. The result is, in the absence of proper sanction, the prosecution launched is without sanction and the appeal fails on this ground as well. 7. The result is, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bond and surety bond, if any, executed by the accused at any stage of the case are hereby cancelled. Appeal dismissed.