JUDGMENT D. P Sood. J.— Through this appeal against the order of acquittal dated 2-7-l987, recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra Division at Dharamsala, the only point pressed info service by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is "whether the sanction order Ex. PF is legal and valid ? 2. The respondent was the accused He was prosecuted under section 16 (1) (a) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and sentenced by the trial Court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months The judgment was challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra Division who held the aforesaid sanction to be illegal and consequently acquitted the accused of the charge referred to above vide the impugned judgment. It is this judgment which has been assailed by the State through this appeal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the Food Inspector purchased 450 grams of Bari Illaichi (Carda Momium) for analysis from the accused on August 6, 1983 at Rajpura. Tehsil Palampur and transferred it in three dry and clean bottles in equal proportions and these bottles were then corked, wrapped and sealed with paper slip, Also after observing other codal formalities, one of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst the contents of which were found to contain 18.25% of mould affected Bart Illaichi capsules Resultantly, a complaint was filed in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Palampur by the Food Inspector after obtaining sanction Ex PF from the Local (Health) Authority, Dharamsala under section 20 (1) of the Act. The complaint was tried in a summary way in accordance with law and accused was sentenced and convicted vide his judgment. dated January 23, 1985 which was appealed against and reversed as indicated above. The learned Counsel for the parties advanced the arguments in support of their claim. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent has vehemently urged that there is no valid sanction for the prosecution of the accused as held by the first appellate Court Elaborating this submission, Shri S. S. Kanwar, contends that the Local (Health) Authority has not at all applied its mind to the facts of this case before according—sanction as required by law. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent has vehemently urged that there is no valid sanction for the prosecution of the accused as held by the first appellate Court Elaborating this submission, Shri S. S. Kanwar, contends that the Local (Health) Authority has not at all applied its mind to the facts of this case before according—sanction as required by law. This order shows that it is a printed form filled in by someone and the Local (Health) Authority has merely appended its signature thereto at the end of it. There is no mention why the prosecution of the accused is essential in the public interest. All these defects in the sanction order demonstrate that sanction is omnibus which cannot form the basis for trial muchless for ultimate conviction 5. Viewing the record, it is to be noted that Shri T D. Sharma was the Local (Health) Authority, Dharamsala at the material time. He has not been examined as a witness. There is no other evidence on record as to what documents were placed before him and how he satisfied himself that the accused have committed the offence under the aforesaid sections of the Act, nor any official of his office has been examined to show as to what documents were produced before the Local (Health) Authority for his satisfaction in this regard The Food Inspector has merely tendered this document Ex. PF as being the sanction accorded by the relevant authority. 6. In all fairness, it is to be noted that where the liberty of a person is at stake and who is liable to serious consequences of prosecution for the above said offences, blank columns of such forms granting sanction should normally be filled in by the concerned authority himself unless for adequate reasons it cannot be done Perusal of Ex. PF shows that it does not demonstrate whether the article in question was adulterated. It remains a mystery how the Local (Health) Authority satisfied himself that the aforesaid offence with which the accused was charged, was found to have been committed at the material time. The document does pot show whether the article was adulterated or mis-branded or whether the said food article could be said under certain condition of the licence, to be so or whether the sale of the said article was prohibited in the public interest. The document does pot show whether the article was adulterated or mis-branded or whether the said food article could be said under certain condition of the licence, to be so or whether the sale of the said article was prohibited in the public interest. From whatsoever angle it be viewed, the approach of the learned Additional Judge is correct As already noticed hereinabove, in the present case, the Local (Health) Authority has failed on all counts. It is, therefore, no sanction in the eye of law and accused cannot be prosecuted on this kind of order. Similar view has been taken in 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 (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. K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others ; 1987 (3) Crimes 638, Delhi Administration v. Sham Lal, Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1985, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mussa, Decided on January 6, 1989, Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1987, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Om Prakash, Criminal Revision No, 20 of 1985, Rattan Lal 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. The result that emerges out of the aforesaid discussion, is that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.