JUDGMENT Bbawani Singh, J.— This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jogindernagar in Criminal Case No. 29-3/78, 89-3/78 and 62-3/78, decided on 30-94986. It is a case under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter for short the Act). 2. The facts, briefly, are that the Food Inspector Ram Chand Barwal visited the grocery shop, run under the name and style of M/s. Balak Ram Shori Lal on 25-4-1978 and after disclosing his identity and his intention to purchase Sarson oil for analysis, sample to the extent of 750 grams was purchased against the payment of Rs. 6.85 p. It was divided equally into three parts and then poured it in three dry and clean bottles, which were corked, labelled, sealed and wrapped according to the procedure. One of the samples, out of the three, was sent to Public Analyst, Chandigarh for analysis. The remaining two, were deposited with the local health authority After analysis, the public analyst reported that the specification value of the contents of sample was 180.3 against the prescribed standard of 168 to 170. Accordingly, the prosecution was launched against the accused who denied the commission of offence and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced two witnesses in support of the charge and also placed reliance on some documents. The matter appeared for the statement of accused under section 313, Cr. P. C. and it was during this time that he moved an application under section 20-A of the Act for impleading firm M/s. Balak Ram and Sons, Pathankot as accused, since, according to the accused sample article was purchased from this firm against voucher dated 17-4-1973 through order of 29-3-1984. When this firm was arrayed as accused, the matter came before this Court at the instance of this firm and this Court allowed the prayer with the result that the order of trial Court impleading this firm as an accused was set aside, however, the accused was permitted to adduce evidence before the trial Court in support of his claim that the article was purchased from this firm. At this time also, the accused did not lead any specific evidence. 3. At this time also, the accused did not lead any specific evidence. 3. After hearing the parties to the case, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused could not be convicted since there was no compliance of provisions of section 10 (7) and section 20 of the Act. The result was that the accused was acquitted of the charge, hence this appeal by the State. 4. The matter was examined with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties. The record of the case was also seen in order to see whether the conclusions of the trial Court in this case are legally sustainable or call for any change, 5. The first point for consideration is whether the Food Inspector has complied with the requirement of section 10 (7) of the Act. This provision requires the Food Inspector, who has gone for purchasing the article for analysis, to obtain signatures of persons present there In this case this has not been done. The explanation is that one Joginder Parkash was called but he did not co-operate. This statement of Food Inspector is contradicted by Damodar Dass (PW-2) who says that it was one Rajinder who was called to the spot; This is material contradiction and it is difficult, in such a situation to believe what the Food Inspector has stated. There is non-compliance of section 10 (7) of the Act and this conclusion of the trial Judge is correct and is affirmed. 6. The second question relates to the sanction part. The learned Counsel for the accused has laid great emphasis in support of the trial Court judgment. By this time, this point has been decided in large number of cases, for example, AIR 1958 SC 124, Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab ; AIR 1977 SC 912, The Corporation of Calcutta v. Md. Omer Ati and another ; 1980 (1) FAC 448, Sewai Ram v. State ; 1983 (1) FAC 229, Yogendra Nath v. State of U. P. ; 1979 (1) PFC 48, Bhagwan Dass and another v. State of U. P ; 1983 (3) FAC 221, State of Maharashtra v. Prabhudas Atalmal; 1986(3) FAC 66, A. AT. Omer Ati and another ; 1980 (1) FAC 448, Sewai Ram v. State ; 1983 (1) FAC 229, Yogendra Nath v. State of U. P. ; 1979 (1) PFC 48, Bhagwan Dass and another v. State of U. P ; 1983 (3) FAC 221, State of Maharashtra v. Prabhudas Atalmal; 1986(3) FAC 66, A. AT. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others ; 1987 (1) FAC 95 Gahninath Bhimarao Patekar v. State of Maharashtra and another ; 1987 (3) Crimes 638, Delhi Administration v. Sham Lai and Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1985, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mussa. 7. Perusal of the consent in this case quite clearly demonstrates that the sanctioning authority has not at all applied its mind before according sanction for the prosecution of the accused as already held by the trial Judge. In these circumstances, it is not difficult to conclude that sanction in this case does not satisfy the parametres laid down by judicial pronouncements, some of which have already been referred in the earlier part of this judgment. 8. The result, therefore, is that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.