JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—This petition, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks to quash the complaint and proceedings taken thereunder by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (!), Amb. 2. The facts, briefly, are that on 24-3-1989, the Food Inspector, Una, took a sample of Shakkar from the petitioners. After processing the same, as required under the Rules, one, out of the three parts of the sample, was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, for analysis On the receipt of the report, the Food Inspector filed a complaint in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amb (Ex P.I) alongwith the report of analysis (Ex. P. 2 l According to the report of the Public Analyst, the sample of Shakkar has been found adulterated within the meaning of section 2 (1-a) (J) of the Act inasmuch as the contents of the sample contained a id-coal-tar-dye of orange shade, which is not a permitted coaltar food colour. Moreover, the addition of even any permitted colouring matter to Shakkar has not been allowed under Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. This prosecution, according to the Food Inspector, is backed by sanction under section 20 of the Act by the Chief Medical Officer, Una. 3. Now, the petitioners have challenged these proceedings by way of present petition on number of grounds. However, I choose only two out of the many taken by the petitioners to assail these proceedings since the learned Counsel for the petitioners also emphasised them with great force. The question is whether the sanction (Ex. P, 3), accorded by the Chief Medical Officer, Una, in this case is in accordance with the requirement of section 20 of the Act. The same has been examined and I am of the considered opinion that it is not in accordance with the requirements of section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The sanctioning authority has not applied its mind, at ^11. before according the same. The same has been examined and I am of the considered opinion that it is not in accordance with the requirements of section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The sanctioning authority has not applied its mind, at ^11. before according the same. It is a cyclostyled form filled in by someone and the sanctioning authority has simply signed it, which clearly demonstrates that the contents of this document were not even read by him, Section 20 of the Act has been the subject-matter of discussion in large number of cases by this time and the opinion of the Courts has been that this provision is salutary in nature and the sanctioning authority has to be careful while, according sanction for the prosecution of a person who is sought to be prosecuted for the violation of the various provisions of the Act. The authority does not have to move mechanically on the dictation of someone elss. It has to apply its mind quite seriously and come to the conclusion that the accused has really violated the provisions of the Act and his prosecution is necessary in public interest. Filling up of the blank columns of a cyclostyled form by someone else, clearly establishes that the sanction is not in accordance . with the requirement of law. 4. The next question relates to the report by the Public Analyst. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the use of orange (II) coaltar- dye has not been prohibited under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. In view of this fact, no offence has been committed by the petitioners. I see force in this contention of the Counsel for the petitioners. Rule 28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 envisages that use of Sunset Yellow FCF Coaltar dye in permissible Rule A 26.02 indicates that Sunset Yellow FCF dye is also known as Orange-Il Coaltar dye. In view of this position, it is difficult to accept the report of the Public Analyst. The view I am taking, has also been taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1988 (1) FAC 169, Subhash Taneja v. State of Haryana. Moreover, Shakkar is not an article of foods mentioned in the list of commodities in the Rules. In view of this position, it is difficult to accept the report of the Public Analyst. The view I am taking, has also been taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1988 (1) FAC 169, Subhash Taneja v. State of Haryana. Moreover, Shakkar is not an article of foods mentioned in the list of commodities in the Rules. In this way, it can be said that the sample taken by the Food Inspector is not ia accordance with law. It is a cardinal principle of criminal law that no one is to be proceeded against for any act which is not an offence which has to be clearly defined by the legislature. Shakkar is a well-known article and in case the legislature intended it to be an article of food, it could have mentioned it quite clearly in the list of articles in the Rules and prescribed a standard therefor. Similar conclusion has been drawn by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagdish Chander v. The State of Haryana, 1990 (I) FAC 155. 5. In view of the aforesaid examination of the matter, it is not in the interest of justice to allow the prosecution of the petitioners to continue. The petition, therefore, is accepted and the proceedings in the trial court are hereby quashed. Petition allowed. -