JUDGMENT 1. - In Cr. case No. 201/81, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur, vide his judgment dated 26-11-82, convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the PFA Act) & sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- (in default further 3 months R.I.), which came to be reduced to 6 months' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1000/- (in default further 3 months RI) only under judgment dated 18-3-87 of Addl. Sess, judge No. 1, Bharatpur, in cr. appeal No. 56/86 (115/82). Hence this revision petition. 2. Shri Praveen Balwada argued on behalf of the petitioner (accused) that in the case at hand, the provisions contained in Section 20 of the PFA Act have not been complied with in its true spirit, and therefore, this case is fully covered by the decision, of this Court in Babulal v. State (S.B. Cr. Rev. Petition No. 159/86 allowed on 12-2-1990) . 3. In the instant case, the sanction for launching prosecution of the petitioner, under Section 20 of the PFA Act was given under Ex. p. 8 which is being reproduced below:- "I, Dr. S.P. Johri Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bharatpur in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by the Government of Rajasthan (Medical & Public Health Deptt.) Notification No. F.8 (24) MPH/74/ Group-I, dated 23-9-78 and amendment No. F.8 (24) Med/Health/74, dated 24-1-79 published in Rajasthan Gazette dated 8-2-79 page No. 394 part-4 (Ga), read with section 20 sub-section (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act do hereby accord my consent for prosecution of Shri Bholey S/o Chunnilal Mali Occupation Halwai Gopalgarh Bharatpur above named for an offence under Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. "Shri H.P. Nandi Dy. C.M. & H.O. (H) & F.I. is hereby authorised to file the complainant in the Court of law. Sd/- CM & HO & Local (Health) Authority, Bharatpur" 4. A look at the above extract will show that it is in a printed form and only the blanks have been filled in. Even the signatures of the local authority in different ink than the date of the aforesaid written consent. There is no date below the signature. 5. Sd/- CM & HO & Local (Health) Authority, Bharatpur" 4. A look at the above extract will show that it is in a printed form and only the blanks have been filled in. Even the signatures of the local authority in different ink than the date of the aforesaid written consent. There is no date below the signature. 5. It is thus clear that before issuing sanction, the Sanctioning Authority did not apply its mind and has not gone into merits as to whether the sanction could be given in the case or not. This is a case of non-application of the mind of the sanctioning authority. Similar were the facts in the above cited case, with which I agree. So, while following the decision of Babulal's case (supra), I am satisfied that the written consent under Section 20 of the PFA Act is not in accordance with law and the courts below could not have taken cognizance against the petitioner and the conviction & sentence are bad in law. 6. I hereby allow this revision petition, set aside the judgments of the courts below, referred to above. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act. The conviction & sentence of the petitioner are set aside. The petitioner is on bail and need not surrender to the bail bonds which shall stand discharged. If the fine is deposited by the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to him on his application.Set aside. *******