JUDGMENT Bbawani Singh, J.—The State, by this appeal, challenges the order of acquittal passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, in Criminal complaint No. I-III/82 decided on 13-12-1985 relating to offence under section 16 (1) (a) (i) and 16 (i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the accused is running a shop at Jawalamukhi. Food Inspector, Shri J. K. Patyal, visited the same on 12-10-1981 and took sample of wheat atta for the purpose of analysis out of the stock kept by the accused for sale. The sample, 750 grams, was placed in three clean and dry bottles in equal parts, sealed and after undergoing other requirements, was sent to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat. The report of the Public Analyst was as under: "1. Insect infestation - Five living insects, fourteen dead insects, seventeen larva with wet formation on 17-10-1981. 2. Insect damage as uric acid = 96 mg./100 g. 3. Moisture-10.0%. 4. Total ash =1.5%. 5. Ash insol in dil Hcl—Nil. 6. Gluten=6.0%. 7. Rodent hair and excreta—Nil. 8. Alcoholic acidity = 0.20%. 9. Odour = Musty. and am of the opinion that insect infestation on 17-10-1981 is give living insects, fourteen dead insects seventeen living larva in whole sample with web formation which caused insect damage as uric acid to the extent of 96 mg/100 g. Alcoholic acidity is in excess by 0.02% than maximum prescribed limit on 20-10-1981." 3. Prosecution was launched. The accused stated that 10 bags of atta was purchased by him from Krishana Dal Plants, Mehatpur, the manufacturing firm, and on his application, Shri Radha Krishan, the sole proprietor of this firm, was added as an accused. It was admitted by the co-accused Shri Radha Krishan that he had supplied 10 bags of atta to Gauri Shankar accused on 10-9-1981 as per the Cash Memo but denied the adulteration part of the case by asserting that the wheat atta supplied by him to the accused Gouri Shankar was bearing the mark of the firm on the bags after the same was properly prepared for the purpose of sale. According to him, the supply of atta is immediately made on receipt of orders and the period between the order, grinding and supply is within 24 hours. There was no scope, according to him, for the dust or any foreign matter coming in the atta. According to him, the supply of atta is immediately made on receipt of orders and the period between the order, grinding and supply is within 24 hours. There was no scope, according to him, for the dust or any foreign matter coming in the atta. 4. The trial court primarily came to the conclusion that there was no sanction for the prosecution of the accused under section 20 of the Act. In view of the same, the trial court held that the present proceedings against the accused are without sanction and are thus vitiated. The trial court further held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the impossibility of germination of insects in natural course in the sample bottles even after sealing the same. On the culpability of Radha Krishan accused, the court found that the cash memo/voucher did not connect the atta purchased by the accused with the sample. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties concentrated their submissions on the point of sanction and it was argued by Shri K. D. Sood, learned Counsel appearing for the accused, that the finding of the trying Magistrate on this aspect are legally sustainable and this Court while sitting to decide an appeal against acquittal may not interfere with the decision of the trying Magistrate. I see substance in this contention of the learned counsel for the accused as there is neither a copy of the sanction order on this file nor the same has been proved on the file in accordance with law. In my opinion, it is a serious snag in the prosecution case. Launching of prosecution is a very important factor. The authority concerned has to took to the whole case before sanctioning prosecution as already held in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mussa, Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1985. Failure to do so will obviously mean initiation of prosecution without proper legal sanction. 6. Shri M. S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, has drawn my attention to AIR 1977 SC 912, The Corporation of Calcutta v. Md. Omer AH and another. In my humble opinion, there is no dispute about the general authorisation to prosecute such cases but the question in dispute is whether there has to be sanction to prosecute the accused in a particular case. Omer AH and another. In my humble opinion, there is no dispute about the general authorisation to prosecute such cases but the question in dispute is whether there has to be sanction to prosecute the accused in a particular case. The same has to be done in individual cases and after proper application of mind by the Health Authority concerned. 7. The result is, there is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed. The bail bond and person bond, if any, executed by the accused at any stage of the case are hereby cancelled. Appeal dismissed.