JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—The State of Himachal Pradesh has assailed the impugned judgment dated December l5, 1987, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (J), Kangra at Dharamsala, regarding the order of acquittal in favour of the respondent Joginder Kumar, for the commission of the offence under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (shortly referred to as the "Act"). 2. Respondent is a partner of the firm named M/s. Lal Chand Mohkam Chand, Amritsar He and the firm were impleaded in the instant case pursuant to a notice issued to him under section 13 (2) of the Act during the pendency of the criminal case against the retail dealer. On 28th May, 1982, the Food Inspector Sh. Subhash Chand, visited the Karyana Shop of M/s Deviditta Mal Bishan Dass, Nagrota Bag wan and after disclosing his identity as such purchased 600 grams of chillies powder from Bishan Dass, partner of this firm with the intention to get it analysed. Its price wag paid against a receipt. The said powder was then transferred into three clean and dry bottles which were corked, wrapped and sealed after fixing the proper seal provided by the Local (Health) Authority, after observing the codal formalities in accordance with law. One of such bottles was sent to the Public Analyst who analysed the contents thereof and vide his report found that the sample contained A Oil Sol Coltar dye other than prescribed under the law. It also contained the extraneous matter in excess by 1-9% and total ash by 2.0% and, therefore, the ample was declared as adulterated Accordingly, he was prosecuted through a complaint filed by the Food Inspector. During the pendency, as observed above, respondent was impleaded. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamsala, on appraisal of evidence acquitted the retail dealer, namely, Sh. Bishan Dass accused of the charge framed against him but convicted the wholesale dealer Sh. Joginder Kumar respondent, for the offence indicated above, vide his order dated 24th January, 1985. The said judgment was appealed against which was accepted and the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) Kangra, acquitted him of the charge which has now been assailed by the State of Himachal Pradesh in the instant appeal. 4. Joginder Kumar respondent, for the offence indicated above, vide his order dated 24th January, 1985. The said judgment was appealed against which was accepted and the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) Kangra, acquitted him of the charge which has now been assailed by the State of Himachal Pradesh in the instant appeal. 4. Shri C. L. Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the appellant has vehemently urged that the finding of the first appellate Court are contrary to the record and against law. According to him it has been proved by the bill Ex. PB that the respondent sold chillies powder to Bishan Dass of M/s. Deviditta Mal Bishan Dass, referred to above on 8-2-1982. According to him the said firm has not produced any other cash-memo or bill whereby he could prove that chillies powder which was sold to the Food Inspector was purchased by the said firm from any other source except that of the respondent. Therefore, whether said chillies powder was being sold in open tin or in polythene bag does not make any difference. 5. The arguments so advanced by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, prima facie appears to be persuasive one but when examined in the eye of law, it appears to be without sustenance Perusal of the record shows that chillies powder was sold by the respondent as partner of the firm vide bill Ex. PB in polythene bags. On the contrary as per the testimony of Subhash Chand, Food Inspector and Rattan Chand, the marginal witness, the sample of chillies powder was purchased by the Food Inspector from Bishan Dass by lifting the same and getting it weighed from open tin. In other words the sample purchased does not tally with the chillies powder sold by the wholesale dealer i e., the respondent with that of the chillies powder purchased by the Food Inspector from the retail dealer. Thus it is not proved on record if the article was sold in the same state as it has been purchased by the retail dealer from the wholesale dealer. Thus the ingredients of section 19(2) (b) of the Act are not proved to give benefit of the warranty to the vendor. 6. During the course of the arguments, learned Counsel for the respondent has challenged the legality and validity of the sanction order {Ex. PK). It is pointed out that sanction order Ex. Thus the ingredients of section 19(2) (b) of the Act are not proved to give benefit of the warranty to the vendor. 6. During the course of the arguments, learned Counsel for the respondent has challenged the legality and validity of the sanction order {Ex. PK). It is pointed out that sanction order Ex. PK purports to have been signed by the Chief Medical Officer and, in fact, amounts to delegation of his powers and it is hit by the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of A. K Rao v. State of Punjab and others, (1986) 3 FAG 66. Even otherwise if it be deemed to be out of the purview of the A. K, Raos case (supra), then according to the learned Counsel also, the said sanction order has been given in routine manner without the Sanctioning Authority having applied its mind before according sanction to prosecute the respondent. 7. In order to see whether the sanction order Ex. PK is legal and valid, the contents thereof are necessary to be detailed which are as under t— "No. Health/PFA/82-77, dated 16-7-1982 Sh. Subhash Chand F. I. C. M. Os Office Dharamsala, 50-3/82 23 Memo. The samples of food bearing the following particulars has/have been declared not conforming to the P. F. A. standards by the Public Analyst. Copy of the report is attached in duplicate. Now you are directed to launch prosecution under section 20 of P. F. A. Act, 1954, and report compliance immediately. (a) Name of the Vendor Sh. Bishan Dass at W. B. (b) S No, of sample SC-4/82. (c) Name of the article—Chillies Powder. Sd/- Signature Local (Health) Authority” 8. Admittedly Ex. PK is the writing given by the C M. O authorising the Food Inspector to launch the prosecution against the offender Shri Bishan Dass from whom the Food Inspector had purchased chillies powder, The authorisation to launch prosecution was not pursuant to the general notification delegating his (Chief Medical Officers) powers to do so. Thus the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondent that this sanction order is covered by the case of A. K. Raos case (supra) is not correct, 9. Thus the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondent that this sanction order is covered by the case of A. K. Raos case (supra) is not correct, 9. Further in order to determine whether sanction order Ex PK is legal sanction under section 20 of the Act in the present case or not, the contents thereof are to be examined carefully Close perusal thereof indicate that sanction order is in printed form Blank columns thereof have been filled in by some one. It does not show that the Sanctioning Authority has taken note of other relevant documents before according sanction. Rather it indicates that Sanctioning Authority has merely depended upon the report of the Public Analyst. There is no gainsaying the fact that Sanctioning Authority before according sanction to launch prosecution against the offender, is obliged to consider all relevant documents connected with the case and then apply its mind to them and satisfy with respect to the existence of a prima facie case. On what basis the Sanctioning Authority had ultimately formed his opinion that it was a fit case for launching prosecution under section 20 of the Act, cannot be deciphered therefrom. Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstance emerging from the contents of this document, in my opinion, it is not full application of mind and proper exercise of power by the Sanctioning Authority In other words, the Sanctioning Authority has violated the mandatory provision of law in opining why the prosecution of Bishan Dass, since acquitted was desirable in the public interest. Sanction appears to have been accorded casually and without application of mind. Thus it is no sanction in the eye of law and criminal proceedings initiated on this kind of sanction are, therefore, illegal and void meaning thereby that accused Bishan Dass could not be tried for the commission of the alleged offence If that be so, then respondent could not have been arrayed as such during the pendency of such illegal trial of said Bishan Dass. In other words, the acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1) Kangra at Dharamsala, vide the impugned order though on other grounds, was legal and valid. There appears to be no infirmity in the impugned judgment, as such the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.