JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—The State of Himachal Pradesh has assailed the impugned judgment dated 31st August, 1987, passed by the learned Sob-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Dehra, District Kangra, whereby he recorded the order or acquittal of the respondent who was involved for the commission of the offence under section 316 (1) (a) (i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. On 11-2-1986, Jagat Ram, PW 1 who was posted as Food Inspector, apprehended the respondent in Dehra Bazar and disclosed his intention to take sample of the mixed milk. Admittedly, at the material time, respondent was carrying 35 kgs. of milk in three containers for the purpose of sale on his bicycle. After observing codal formalities PW I took sample against consideration of Rs. 1 80 and divided the same into three dry, clean bottles after adding formaline therein. Other process regarding the sealing of the said bottles etc. and preparation of panchnama, issuance of receipts etc. is not disputed. One sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat while remaining two were deposited with the Local Health Authorities Kangra at Dharamshala. The report of the Public Analyst Ex. PE reflected the sample to be deficient in milk solids-not fat and milk fat to the extent of 25% and 27% respectively. Thus the said sample having been found to be adulterated, respondent was prosecuted for the commission of the above said offence. 3. Notice of accusation was given to the accused wherein he pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed to be tried. 4. The learned Court below on appraisal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution took notice of two facts, firstly that milk was not properly stirred and secondly that sanction was not legal and valid, recorded the impugned order of acquittal in favour of the accused. 5. In the instant appeal, Shri R. C. Gautaro, Advocate, appearing as Special Public Attorney on behalf of the State has confined his argument to two points, (i) that milk from which the sample was taken was properly stirred as per the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and (ii) that sanction letter Ex. PF was legal and valid. 6. As per the testimony of PW 1, the milk in the containers was stirred with one kg. measure and thus made homogeneous. PF was legal and valid. 6. As per the testimony of PW 1, the milk in the containers was stirred with one kg. measure and thus made homogeneous. Admittedly, the respondent was carrying 35 kgs. of milk in three containers at the material time. He is the sole witness to this effect. PW 3 Nand Kishore was also present. He simply states on oath that the milk from which sample was taken, was snaked. But how and in what manner, this witness is silent There is no gainsaying the fact that before a sample of milk is taken by the Food Inspector, he must ensure that the milk has been made homogeneous. In otherwise case, the Public Analyst report is affected and thus may not be able to give correct and true percentage of the milk fat and milk solids-not fat. While assessing the value of the report it becomes the imperative duty of the Court to ascertain if the sample of milk had been properly taken by the Food Inspector. The proper sample would only be if the milk is made homogeneous by stirring. If the Court comes to a conclusion that the milk was not properly stirred and made homogeneous it is not bound to rely upon the Public Analyst to pass conviction on the milk vendor. 7. In the instant case the oral evidence of PWs I and 3 are contradictory. Even (Panchnamai Ex. PC which was the earliest document prepared by the Food Inspector in this respect or receipt issued to the respondent (Ex. PB) does not show that the milk contained in the containers, was properly stirred and made homogeneous. Even the complaint does not contain any reference about the stirring of the milk The circumstances are to be proved by the complainant. There is no proforma prescribed for the drafting of the complaint. Necessary facts which constitute an offence have to be dealt in the complaint. If some essential facts or essential requirements which are prerequisite before doing an act is not mentioned in a complaint, then the accused in a given case, has the right to show that the prosecution has made &n improvement in its case In the instant case, I find that the complaint is on a printed form The Food Inspector simply fills in the blanks in accordance with the facts of the case before filing those in Court. Such a practice is not healthy as the proformas are not comprehensive to contain all the facts of every conceivable case Even the absence mentioning of such essential requisite constitute an offence. In the circumstances, it cannot be said to have considered by the Sanctioning Authority even if the entire documents are placed before him. Thus the Court below had rightly appreciated the evidence in recording the order of acquittal of the respondent in the instant case. 8. As regards the second point pertaining to sanction, suffice it to state that this aspect of the case has elaborately been considered in State of Himachal Pradesh v, Jeet Singh, Cri. Appeal No 285 of l988, decided on December 11, 1991. In addition to the reasoning detailed therein, it would be essential to add that it becomes imperative duty of the Sanctioning Authority to apply its mind to all the essential elements constituting the offence. In the instant case as observed above, even if it be deemed that all the documents, namely, notice, disclosing his intention to take sample (Ex. PA), the receipt of taking sample against payment Ex. PB, panchnama Ex PC and the report of the Public Analyst, Ex. PE, which are deemed to have been considered, were placed before the Sanctioning Authority and they were considered by him, then also he cannot be said to have applied its mind in legal parlance inasmuch as the element of the milk having been made homogeneous by proper stirring, was missing. On that count also the sanction letter Ex. PF cannot be held to be a legal and valid document. 9. From whatsoever angle the case be considered, there appears to be no infirmity in the impugned order. The learned Court below has rightly appreciated the evidence and the order of acquittal recorded by him is based on sound reasoning. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.