JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—Sh. Desh Raj, respondent, who was prosecuted by the appellant in the trial Court for the commission of offence under section It) (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), carries on his karyana shop at Chauntara, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi. On December 23,1983 Sh. P. S. Verma, the then Food Inspector after disclosing his identify and also expressing his desire to lift the sample, of Ajwain for the purpose of analysis purchased 450 gram thereof against due payment of Rs 4-50 paise against receipt Ex. PB in the presence of witness Sh Charan Singh After observing codel formalities, the said sample was divided into three equal parts and was put into three neat, clean and dry bottles which were sealed and wrapped in accordance with law Later on sample was sent to the analyst at Chandigarh (Punjab). Vide his report Ex PE, he found the contents of the sample containing 3.30% of inorganic extraneous matter against a maximum prescribed standard of 20 per cent. The Food Inspector, thereafter afforded an opportunity to Desh Raj by intimating him vide letter dated 23-9-1984 that his commodity to which sample was taken by him was found to be adulterated/misbranded and in case he wanted the second sample kept in the office of the local health authority concerned, to be analysed from the Director, Central Food Laboratory, he can do so within ten days after the receipt of the letter (Ex. PW 3/B). Subsequently, he sought sanction (Ex PF) from the Chief Medical Officer, Mandi District, H. P. for the prosecution of the respondent and prosecuted him for the commission of offence referred to above. 2. The notice of accusation was given and explained to the accused but he had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. On appraisal of the evidence, the learned Court below found the sanction order Ex. PF to be not a legal and valid order and holding that as the said sanction order constitutes condition precedent to the institution of the prosecution, whole of the proceedings launched against the respondent were illegal and liable to be vitiated. On this basis, he recorded the impugned order of acquittal on September 26, 1987 which has been assailed by the State of H P. through his appeal. 4. Sh. On this basis, he recorded the impugned order of acquittal on September 26, 1987 which has been assailed by the State of H P. through his appeal. 4. Sh. C. L. Sharma, Advocate, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of H. P., as Special Public Prosecutor, has attempted to persuade this Court that once the sanction order has been exhibited and accepted by the trial Court without any objection raised by the opposite party, it could not have been assailed by the respondent during the course of arguments nor the Court below could have held it to be illegal and void document not capable of being acted upon for the purpose of basing his conviction by prosecuting the respondent. 5. It is a well settled law that sanction to prosecute is an important matter ; it constitutes a condition precedent to the institution of the prosecution and the person authorised to give such consent under section 20 of the Act applying his mind to the file/material placed before him has got an absolute discretion to grant or withhold the permission to prosecute the person from whom the sample was purchased as an offender. In case the sanction is accorded in a casual manner and without application of mind, it is no sanction in the eye of law and criminal proceedings initiated on this account of sanction order are, therefore, illegal and void, meaning thereby that the accused cannot be tried for the commission of the alleged offence. 6. In the instant case, sanction order is Ex. PF. No doubt it has been exhibited in the statement of Food Inspector Sh. P. S Verma, PW 1 without any objection having been raised by the opposite party, PW 1 has simply stated that he sought sanction from the Chief Medical Officer concerned and has not stated any other thing as to on what basis and in what circumstances and on what material the said sanction was given by the concerned officer Merely exhibiting the sanction order does not make such an order legal and valid document It is also the duty of the Court to see whether the contents thereof do indicate whether the sanctioning authority has or has not applied its mind while sanctioning the prosecution of a person because sanction affects the liberty of a citizen. The sanction order Ex. The sanction order Ex. PF in the instant case, reflects that it is a cyclostyled form, some of the columns of which were blank but have been filled up by some other person other than the Chief Medical Officer. It also shows that even the date given at the relevant place has been filled in by some person who filled in the columns and it merely contains the signature of the Chief Medical Officer in his hand. In the sanction order the expression used to the effect that the sanctioning authority had "after going through the report of the Public Analyst and other relevant documents in respect of the sample......" AND “also after applying his mind fully in the case is of the opinion that it is a fit case for launching the prosecution under sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954" are in cyclostyled form". Even the sanctioning authority has not cared to know nor corrected the sentence as to what does he mean by the expression "of sections 7 of 16 of the P. F. A. Act, 1954". What was the material placed before him and to which document he applied his mind and what was the case made out against the offender on the basis of the report of the public analyst, are not reflected by the aforesaid sanction order. I need not discuss the other aspects of this sanction order as it is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court announced in the case of State of H. P. v. Jeet Singh, (Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 1988, decided on December 11, 1991). Applying the principles laid down therein, to my mind the sanction order has rightly been held to be not a legal and valid document and consequently, the prosecution launched against the respondent to be illegal. In other words, the impugned order of acquittal has rightly been recorded by the learned trial Court. There appears to be no infirmity calling for an interference at this stage. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.