JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J—The State has challenged the acquittal of the accused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan in Case No. 101/3 of 1983 decided on l/-5-l!>86. The allegation against the accused is under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereafter the Act). 2. The case against the accused is that the Food Inspector visited his shop and took the sample of DALIAV It was divided into three parts and then put into three neat, clean and dry bottles. These bottles were tightly corcked, labelled and fastened in a thick wraper. A paper slip bearing Code No. SLN/S/39 was affixed from the bottom to top of each bottle with gum. The signatures of the accused were obtained in such a way that it covered the paper slip and the wraper. The bottles were fastened with thread and sealed with sealing wax. Seal impressions were put on each bottle and out of them, one was seat to the Public Analyst for analysis while others were retained with the Health Authority. 3. On analysis, the Public Analyst reported that the contents of the sample contained nine rat droppings. Consent under section 20 of the Act was obtained and prosecution was launched against the accused. During the course of the arguments in the case, it was pointed out successfully to the Court that the Food Inspector had no jurisdiction within cantonment area of Kasauli. The Court went into this matter and acquitted the accused, although, on the point of adulteration the findings turned against the accused. 4. During the course of hearing of this case, learned Counsel for the accused made submissions on the merits of the case. It was contended that the sample taken by the Food Inspector was not a representative sample as a result thereof, the minimal adulteration has been found in the food article. It was also submitted that on analysis by the Central Food Laboratory, the nature of adulteration changed, as a result of which fresh sanction under section 20 of the Act was also required. Finally, it was also submitted that the sanction granted by the Local Health Authority under section 20 of the Act is not in accordance with law, therefore* proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. Finally, it was also submitted that the sanction granted by the Local Health Authority under section 20 of the Act is not in accordance with law, therefore* proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. It is clear from the statements of the prosecution witnesses that the food article was purchased from the accused for the purpose of analysis, but before dividing the same into three parts and putting it into the three bottles, the Food Inspector did not follow the method of quartering as described in authoritative book "Chemical Analysis of Food and Food Products (Second Edition) by Morris B. Jacobs", importance of which has been very pertinently emphasized in the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in ILR 1986 HP 578, Bhagat Ram ett v. State ofH. P. It can, therefore, be said that the sample taken by the Food Inspector in this case is not a representative sample. 6. On the second question, we have two reports-one by the Public Analyst and the other by the Central Food Laboratory. They differ from each other. Consent was obtained on the basis of the adulteration found by the Public Analyst, but in view of the final report by the Central Food Laboratory, the report by the Public Analyst stands superseded and since the nature of the offence and the penalty prescribed therefor is entirely changed, fresh sanction under section 20 of the Act is necessary. (See : 1990 (1) Sim LC 126, Rattan Lai v. State of H. P.). The submission relating to the sanction under section 20 of the Act has also substance in view of the fact that the sanctioning authority has simply signed the order which is infact a cyclostyled form, columns of which have been filled up by some-one else, which means the sanctioning authority has not at all applied its mind before according the sanction in this case. This is illegal and initiation of proceedings on this kind of sanction is legally impermissible, in view of number of decisions by this Court which have been approved in Full Bench decision of this Court in Rattan Lal’s case {supra). 7. In view of the aforesaid conclusions, it is not necessary to examine the question whether the Food Inspector had the authority to take the sample from the cantonment area of Kasaul Town. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. 7. In view of the aforesaid conclusions, it is not necessary to examine the question whether the Food Inspector had the authority to take the sample from the cantonment area of Kasaul Town. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.