JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—The State of Himachal Pradesh has assailed the impugned judgment dated October 8, 1987, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba (Himachal Pradesh) whereby the respondent-accused was set at liberty for the commission of the offence under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter called as the Act). 2. Jagat Ram, Food Inspector, took the sample of milk by purchasing 660 mis. from the shop of the respondent located in Chamba on January 23, 1985, after observing the codal formalities with respect to disclosing his identity, covering the sample into three bottles and sealing thereof in accordance with the rules. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst reflected milk solid non-fat to be 7.2% which were deficient by 15% than the minimum prescribed standard. On receiving the report Ex PF, PW-f obtained sanction from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned, under section 20 of the Act and thereafter launched the prosecution against the respondent. 3. The trial Magistrate relying upon the statement of the Food Inspector, convicted the accused but on appeal he was acquitted of the commission of the offence by the impugned judgment. 4. Shri M. S. Guleria, the learned Deputy Advocate General attacked the finding on the sanction Ex. PF of the learned Sessions Judge by contending that the sanctioning authority in the instant case has clearly and unequivocally terms stated that he has gone through the entire record of the case presented to him before he accorded the sanction Further it was pointed out that the sanctioning authority carefully scrutinized the entire record and the same amounted to reasons which weighed with the sanctioning authority while granting sanction. On merits, he pointed out that milk was stirred with KHAUNCHA’ as per the categorical statement of Jagat Ram, PW-l as such the learned Court below has erred in not having properly appreciated the evidence. 5. Before me, taking of the sample is not disputed. On merits, he pointed out that milk was stirred with KHAUNCHA’ as per the categorical statement of Jagat Ram, PW-l as such the learned Court below has erred in not having properly appreciated the evidence. 5. Before me, taking of the sample is not disputed. The well established principle that sanctioning authority must point out the relevant particulars on the basis of which the prosecution was based and in relation to which the said authority had been satisfied regarding the existence of prima facie case resulting into the recording of the reasons therefor and as to why the accused should not be prosecuted in the public interest has not been disputed The observations made by their lordships of the Supreme Court in A K Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1986 FAJ 514 has also not been disputed which are to the following effect :— .....be can only give his consent in writing when he is satisfied that a prima facie case exists in the facts of a particular case and record his reasons for the launching of such prosecution in the public interest." 6. In the instant case, the Chief Medical Officer has not appeared as a witness on behalf of the prosecution Sanction Ex. PF does not indicate as to what facts and circumstances and what record was taken into consideration by the sanctioning authority while granting sanction. Thus the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that the consent of the Chief Medical Officer (Ex. PF) is not a valid sanction as the same does not disclose the reasons for giving such consent and is vague, are based on sound appreciation and correct application of the law to the facts of the instant case. 7. Regarding the next contention, suffice it to states that PW-l in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that he had not stirred the milk before taking the sample. I need not discuss the other evidence on this aspect of the case. At this stage it may be added that in the margin of Panchnama Ex. 7. Regarding the next contention, suffice it to states that PW-l in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that he had not stirred the milk before taking the sample. I need not discuss the other evidence on this aspect of the case. At this stage it may be added that in the margin of Panchnama Ex. PC, the Food Inspector, has appended a note that the milk in Kadai’ was stirred with Khauncha’ This note does appear to have been inserted later on as the signatures of the marginal witness PW-3 Parveen Kumar are above this note and not below it which in the normal course should have been below the above said note. The conclusion to this effect of the learned Sessions Judge is also based on sound reasons. The approach of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be purely wooden, artificial or imaginative in this respect. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case there appears to be no infirmity in existence which may call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment is upheld. Appeal dismissed.