JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J—Through this appeal against acquittal, the State has questioned the correctness of decision in Cr. Appeal No. 64 of 1986, decided on 31-8-1987 by Sessions Judge, Kaagra. 2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that Food Inspector Bid hi Chand Sharma found the accused, a milk vendor, carrying two drums of milk on his cycle on 28-10-1984. After disclosing his identity and intention to purchase sample of milk by giving notice (Ext. PA), cows milk to the extent of 660 ml. was purchased for Rs. 1,60 paise through receipt (Ext. PB) after duly stirring it, 3. The sample milk was divided into three equal parts and then put into three clean and dry bottles after adding 18 drops of formalin. These bottles were corcked, wrapped and sealed in accordance with procedure. One, out of three bottles, was sent to the Public Analyst, while the other two were deposited with the Local Health Authority. After analysis, the Public Analyst reported (Ext. PE) that the percentage of milk fat in the contents of the sample bottle was deficient by 49% and the percentage of milk solids-not-fat deficient by 59% than the minimum prescribed standard. After receipt of this report and due notice to the accused, prosecution was launched in the trial Court. The trial ended in the conviction of the accused with the result that the decision was challenged before the Sessions Judge where the accused was acquitted, hence this appeal by the State. 4. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the parties have concentrated their submissions on the question whether the sanction accorded by the Chief Medical Officer under section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is in accordance with law and if not, what would be the consequence of such a situation In order to examine this question, tee sanction order (Ext. PB) has been perused. It is a cyclostyled form certain columns of which have been filled in by some-one The Chief Medical Officer has only appended his signatures at the end of it. It cannot, therefore, be said whether the sanctioning authority applied his mind to the facts of this case and the offence involved before according the sanction from it, it is also not clear how the sanctioning authority came to the conclusion that the prosecution of the accused is in the public interest. It cannot, therefore, be said whether the sanctioning authority applied his mind to the facts of this case and the offence involved before according the sanction from it, it is also not clear how the sanctioning authority came to the conclusion that the prosecution of the accused is in the public interest. Giving of sanction by the sanctioning authority for prosecution under the Act is not an empty formality. It is a serious task and the power has, therefore, to be exercised seriously and carefully after looking into the matter comprehensively. In AIR 1979 SC 677, Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court said that: "It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways ; either (I) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. Any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ad initial 5. Again in 1982 (i) FAC 318, State of U. P. v. Shyam Manohar, the following observations are also noticeable: "The question now arises whether the sanction in this case was properly accorded by the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki or not. The sanction is Ext Ka. 7. I find that this sanction is accorded on a prepared form so much so that only name of the accused, his residence and rule under section 7 have to be incorporated. The remaining things are in a printed form so much so that even perusal of the documents which is essential in according sanction also appears in a printed form. The details in this form are mentioned in Hindi script and these are in a different ink. The Chief Medical Officer signed this printed form in English When I compared the letters 7a and 4Qa9 in Hindi, appearing on Ext. Ka 7 with these letters appearing on Ext. Ka. 6 it appears that the same person who wrote out Ext. Ka. The Chief Medical Officer signed this printed form in English When I compared the letters 7a and 4Qa9 in Hindi, appearing on Ext. Ka 7 with these letters appearing on Ext. Ka. 6 it appears that the same person who wrote out Ext. Ka. 6 appears to have written the Hindi script of this Ext, Ka, 7 The sanction that has to be accorded in such a case was deliberately introduced by the framers of the Act so that the officer concerned who accorded sanction should himself peruse the documents and should come to a conclusion whether an offence under the provisions of this Act could be said to have been committed by the accused. If sanctions have to be on a printed form in which some details have to be mentioned and signatures have to be appended the very object of incorporating the provisions of sanction in the Act would be defeated. A duty is cast upon the sanctioning authorities to scrutinise the papers and come to an independent finding on their own that prima facie on the perusal of the documents an offence can be said to have been made out. This duty has to be performed by them in all seriousness. If the sanctioning documents are got printed and some details have to be incorporated in the shops of name and residence of the accused and the rules of the Act, that would be defeating the very object and I cannot approve such a method in the accord of sanction. It is not a case where the sanctioning Officer dictated the sanctioning documents to his Steno or to a typist which was typed out and then signed by him. This is permissible in law. In the instant case before me, as noted above, it appears that the department has got this form printed and it was probably put in the ordinary course before the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki who signed it when the other details probably were filled up much earlier before this document was put before him. I am in respectful agreement with the observations of Bakshi, J in the case of Krishna Lal v. State, reported in 1978 (II) FAG 130 that. I am in respectful agreement with the observations of Bakshi, J in the case of Krishna Lal v. State, reported in 1978 (II) FAG 130 that. “In all fairness to the citizen where liberty is at stake and who is liable to serious consequences of prosecution under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, blank columns of this form granting sanction, should normally be filled in by the medical officer of Health himself, unless for adequate reasons it cannot be done" I would go to the extent of remarking that the practice of according sanction on printed form like Ext Ka. 7 should be put to a stop to and in future the sanctioning authority either should itself write out the sanction or dictate the sanction under his supervision and then sign the same if such printed forms which are probably filled up before hand when these are put up for signatures before the sanctioning authority are allowed to be used it would be depriving the accused of getting his case scrutinised by the sanctioning authority who himself should peruse the documents and thereafter give sanction. In this case, therefore, I agree with the findings of the trial Court that no proper sanction for the prosecution of the accused was obtained and as such his conviction cannot be recorded under the Act with the result that his acquittal by the trial Court cannot be interfered with by me." 6. Similar view has been taken in cases like s AIR 1958 SC 124, Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 912, The Corporation of Calcutta v. Md. Similar view has been taken in cases like s AIR 1958 SC 124, Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 912, The Corporation of Calcutta v. Md. Omer Ali and another, 1980 (1) FAC 448, Sewal Ram v. State, 1983 (I) 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 K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1987 (3) Crimes 638, Delhi Administration v. Shorn Lal, Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1985, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mussa, decided on January 6, 1989, and Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1987, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Om Parkash, Criminal Revision No. 20 of 1985 Rattan Lai v. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on August 16, 1989, 1989 (1) FAC 387, Ms Shakun and another v. Delhi Administration, 1989 (2) FAC 149, Public Health Department v. Jiwanlal, 1989 (2) Sim LC 7, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Noor Din, 1989(2) Sim LC 211, Sukhchain Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and 1991 (1) Sim. LC 76, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rup Chand. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is absolutely clear that sanction order (Ext. PH) passed by the Chief Medical Officer in this case, is not in accordance with law. The accused cannot be prosecuted on this kind of sanction since it is void ab initio. The first Appellate Court has rightly ordered the acquittal of the accused on this basis. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.