Judgment : This is a revision filed by the appellant in C.A.No.13 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad by which the conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Nizamabad in C.C.No.241 of 1986 to the appellant for the offence under Sec.7(1) read with Sec.2(ia)(a)(c) and Sec.16(1)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was confirmed. 2. Having regard to the points urged by the petitioner and the order proposed to be made, I do not think it necessary to state the entire facts that led to the conviction of the appellant. In this instant case the only ground urged by the petitioner is regarding the validity of the sanction awarded by the authority for prosecuting the petitioner appellant for the offence under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Order of the Director of Food (Health) Authority, dated 20th December, 1985 granting sanction reads as follows: “After careful consideration of the ease, the Food (Health) Authority, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad accords sanction to launch prosecution under the provisions of the P.F.A.Act, 1954 and P.F.A. Rules, 1955 against the vendor i.e., B.Raja Goud, s/o.Bala Goud, Toddy Co-operative Society, Manchippa Village, Nizamabad District and licensee namely Sidda Goud, s/o.Laxma Goud, President of Toddy Co-operative Society, Manchippa Village, Nizamabad district in respect of sample No.M/ 7011/F1/NZB/ZII/86 of Toddy which is found to be adulterated as per public analyst report No.516/85 dated 20.09.85. The Food Inspector, Zone II, Nizamabad district is directed to file complaint against the offenders immediately and intimate the date of institution of prosecution case No. and name of the court before which prosecution is launched.” 3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authority sanctioning prosecution had not applied its mind and it also failed to give reasons for granting sanction and that therefore it is bad in law. According to the latest law laid down by the Supreme Court the sanctioning Authority is not only required to apply its mind to the facts of the case but it should satisfy itself that there is prima facie case and should also record reasons for launching prosecution and also specify that it is necessary in the public interest. But in this instant case neither the reasons for granting sanction are recorded nor is it pointed out that the launching of prosecution is in the public interest. But in this instant case neither the reasons for granting sanction are recorded nor is it pointed out that the launching of prosecution is in the public interest. As that is the legal position the inevitable conclusion is that the sanctioning authority in the instant case had not applied its mind while granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner. Therefore, the sanction granted is not in accordance with law and the prosecution launched against the petitioner on the existing sanction is in violation of Sec.20 of the P.F.A.Act. Therefore the sentence imposed on the petitioner is liable to be set aside. 4. In the result the Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower Court.