JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—By this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of Additional Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Simla, dated 26-4-1986 whereby the petitioner has been impleaded as one of the accused in pursuance of the prayer of accused Rup Lal in an application under section 20-A of the Prevention of hood Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Yudhister Lal, Food Inspector, Simla, took a sample of cows milk from Ashwani Kumar on 31-3-1984 out of a tin. The Food Inspector, after dividing the sample into three parts, sent one of them to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst, in his report (Annexure P-2), opined that the percentage of milk fat was deficient by 14% than the minimum prescribed standard. Consequently, a complaint under section 16 (l)(a) of the Act was made by the Food Inspector against the vendor, Shri Ashwani Kumar of M/s. Nanak Chand, 73, Lower Bazar, Simla. 3. The accused Shri Ashwani Kumar thereafter filed an application under section 20-A of the Act and asserted that he was only a retail vendor. He sold the sample article from a sealed tin which he had purchased from one Shri Rup Lal S/o Ratti Ram, M/s. Jain Dhaba, Middle Bazar, Simla and the bill issued by Shri Rup Lal to the applicant for the month of March, 1984, showing the supply of milk and receipt of payment therefore, was also indicated. It was also indicated that the tin in which the said ‘ASR SML Shri Rup Lal supplies milk to the applicant had the mark of. SD RL It was further contended by Shri Ashwani Kumar, applicant, in this application that he sold the milk in the same state and condition to the Food Inspector in which he had purchased it from the said Shri Rup Lal and the said article of food while in the custody of the applicant was properly stored. In fact, he asserts, the sample was taken just at the time when the said tin had arrived in the shop of the applicant. In fact, he asserts, the sample was taken just at the time when the said tin had arrived in the shop of the applicant. In these circumstances, Shri Rup Lal was liable for the offence, if any, under the Act The trying Magistrate recorded the statements of two witnesses, namely, applicant Ashwani Kumar as AW 1, who reiterated his submissions made in the application, and he was supported by said Shri Rup Lal, who appeared as A W. 2. On the basis of this material, the learned Magistrate found that there was sufficient ground to implead Rup Lal as co-accused under section 20-A of the Act and, therefore, after impleading him as such, summons for his appearance were issued on 15-1-1986. 4. Shri Rup Lal thereafter filed an application on 24-3-1986 under section 20-A of the Act for impleading the present petitioner as an accused. In his application he stated that the milk in question was received by him from the petitioner in a sealed tin and the same was further supplied by him to accused No 1-Shri Ashwani Kumar in the same state in which the milk was received by him from the petitioner who is a manufacturer and distributor of milk. He further stated that he received the said milk against a proper cash memo issued by the petitioner and during the period the milk remained with him, the same was properly stored till the same was supplied to accused No, 1-Shri Ashwani Kumar. In these circumstances, the petitioner being a manufacturer/distributor of milk was responsible for the commission of offence of adulteration of milk under the Act and so liable to be made an accused in the case in accordance with law. The Court recorded the statement of the applicant who admitted that he sold the milk to Ashwani Kumar after the same was purchased from the petitioner and the same was purchased in sealed condition and remained in the same condition till the same was sold to Shri Ashwani Kumar. The bill regarding the purchase of the tins from the petitioner (marked-x) was also filed. It was further stated that the same was properly stored while the same was kept by him. He further stated that he was only the local dealer of the petitioner and that he passed on the sealed tin in the same way in which it was received. It was further stated that the same was properly stored while the same was kept by him. He further stated that he was only the local dealer of the petitioner and that he passed on the sealed tin in the same way in which it was received. The trial court, on the basis of the material as aforesaid, vide order dated 2c-4-1986, impleaded the petitioner as one of the accused in the case and issued summons for his appearance for 21-5-1986. Petitioner has a grievance against this order and he assails the same by way of this petition. This is how the matter has come before this Court 5. Shri D. S. Sawhney raised three submissions. The first submission relates to the joint trial of the petitioner with the other accused. It is contended that his client cannot be joined with other accused in the trial of this case by a Dealer. Only a vendor can implead the manufacturer, distributor or dealer under section 20-A of the Act. Further, it is contended that there is want of "same transaction" in the present case to enable the court to proceed against the petitioner. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Das Jagdish Chander v. Delhi Administration, (1975) 1 SCC 866, the submissions of the learned Counsel have no substance. All these principles have been exhaustively dealt with and decided by their Lordships in this judgment. 6. In the present case, the application has been filed by accused No. 1, who is a vendor. It is on the production of evidence by him to the satisfaction of the Court that accused No. 2 Rup Lal has been added as an accused who has admitted his connection in the transaction. Rup Lal has further stated that he had purchased the tin from the petitioner. It is on his application that the petitioner has been added. The food article in question has passed from the petitioner down to the vendor and then ultimately to the purchaser. 7. The second submission deals about the testing of the sample. Rup Lal has further stated that he had purchased the tin from the petitioner. It is on his application that the petitioner has been added. The food article in question has passed from the petitioner down to the vendor and then ultimately to the purchaser. 7. The second submission deals about the testing of the sample. It is contended that after the report of the Public Analyst was received, the accused exercised his right to get the sample tested from the Director, Central Food Laboratory and indicates that the report given by the Public Analyst stands superseded by the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory which is final on the sample analysis. 8. In the present case, the sample sent to this authority was found damaged ; its delivery was not taken as the seals on the outer cover of the sample parcel were found to be damaged and had fallen off in some places and the wooden boards were found to be loose. The parcel was not returned to the court on account of the illegible name of the court and the same was sent to the Return Letter Office at Lucknow. This office opened it and pass after checking the contents, it sent it to Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. This authority accepted it, tested it and gave the report (Annexure P-8) holding that the sample did not conform to the standard of cow milk for Himachal Pradesh as laid down in the table below item A. 11.01.11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 in that the milk fat content was less than the minimum prescribed limit. The factum of the nature of the sample as contended by the petitioner has been admitted by the authorities in its communications to the court and in the last part of this report (Annexure P-8), it says: "the seals on the sample container were in tact. The seals on cover of court over sample container were also in tact and tallied with the seal impression given on the copy of memo forwarded separately. The seals on sample parcel were not verified as the parcel was broken but was tied with jute twine by R. L. O. Lucknow" 9. It is this report (Annexure P-8) which is being made the basis of the present prosecution of the petitioner. These submissions of the learned Counsel have a substance. The seals on sample parcel were not verified as the parcel was broken but was tied with jute twine by R. L. O. Lucknow" 9. It is this report (Annexure P-8) which is being made the basis of the present prosecution of the petitioner. These submissions of the learned Counsel have a substance. Facts narrated by Shri D. S. Sawhney render the report of the Central Food Laboratory (Annexure P-8) completely useless and unworthy of evidence in the case within the meaning of legal provisions. It cannot be made use of by the prosecution. Now, the only report left is the report of the Public Analyst (Annexure P-2), but the same stands superseded by the report of the Central Food Laboratory and cannot be made use or in view of the case in 1981 (II) F. A. C. 280, (Chetumal v. State of HP. and another. The result is. the prosecution cannot be continued in such a situation and has to be quashed. 10. The third submission relates to the sanction under section 20 of the Act. It is contended on this account that in the light of large number of judicial pronouncements relating to the interpretation of section 20 of the Act requiring mandatorily a proper and legal sanction for the initiation of prosecution against the accused ; the fresh sanction given by the Local Health Authority in the present case is no sanction in the eye of law. It is asserted that the sanctioning Authority has not. at all, applied its mind to the facts of the case and appended its signature to the sanction order routinely and mechanically. It’s further asserted that provisions of section 20-A of the Act may not require fresh sanction in the case of the petitioner due to the sanction already given qua the vendor but the sanction qua the vendor has to be legal and valid. In the case in hand, the same does not pass this test of legality and validity and fails on that account. Manufacturer, Distributor and Dealer cannot be proceeded against on such a sanction. Perusal of the sanction order reveals that a cyclostyled form has been used it has been filled by someone and the Chief Medical Officer (Local Health Authority) has only signed it. Manufacturer, Distributor and Dealer cannot be proceeded against on such a sanction. Perusal of the sanction order reveals that a cyclostyled form has been used it has been filled by someone and the Chief Medical Officer (Local Health Authority) has only signed it. It is not clear as to what other relevant documents with respect to the sample in question were seen and examined by him and what influenced him to come to the conclusion that sanction to prosecute the accused was called for. It is a case where it can be said that the sanctioning authority has proceeded with the matter casually and routinely without seeing that grant of sanction to prosecute a person under the Act is sine qua non for the prosecution and a serious matter. It is to be seen with care and caution. It is after examining the whole matter carefully that the authority has to come to the conclusion that an offence, in his opinion, has been committed by a person and it is in the public interest that prosecution is called for. Examination of the matter on this aspect in light of the sanction order dated 28-6-84 and preponderance of judicial opinion on this aspect, I am of the opinion that there is no proper and legal sanction in the present case and the prosecution of the accused in these circumstances invalid. 11. The result is, there is merit in this petition and it is a fit case for the exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in case No. 12/3 of 1985 against all the accused. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and proceedings in case No. 12/3 of 1985, pending before the Additional Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Simla, are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.