JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral): This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirmour at Nahan dated 1st June, 1993. Respondent, after having been found guilty under section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for 6 months and also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment whereof he required to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Against this judgment respondent preferred an appeal which came up before the appellate Court below and by means or impugned judgment, respondent has been acquitted, hence this appeal at the instance of the State. 2. In. order to properly appreciate the respective submissions urged on behalf of the parties, brief facts need to be noticed. On 4.4.1986 at about 10.00 A.M. G.R-Puri (PW-1), Food Inspector of Sirmour District accompanied by Medical Officer, Dr. Subhash Thakur, visited Dhaula Kuan near Paonta Sahib. Respondent was running his Dhaba there. After disclosing his identity as well as intention to drew sample out of the curd lying in the Kunda ( an earthen pot having wide mouth for curdling milk) which was full for curd, the Food Inspector purchased 750 gms. of curd and after observing codal formalities and adding preservative, one sample of curd was sent for analysis, as require under law, to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh who opined that the contents o. sample were deficient in milk fat by 40% and in milk -solid-not fat by 41% of-the minimum prescribed standard. 3. Record shows that after receipt of report of the Public Analyst by the Local Health Authority, it was sent to the Food Inspector who applied for grant of sanction as required under .law. PW -O Dr. N.P. Aggarwal, Chief Medical Officer, District Sirmour at Nahan accorded sanction vide Ex.P-12 authorising the Food Inspector (PW-1) to launch prosecution against the respondent, when the prosecution was, in fact, launched by him before the court below. 4. Intimation regarding launching prosecution along with copy of report of the Public Analyst was sent by registered post to the respondent, but it was received back un-delivered since the respondent was not available at the given address. In order to prove Ex.P-12, Dr. N.P. Aggarvval (PW 3) was examined by the prosecution. 4. Intimation regarding launching prosecution along with copy of report of the Public Analyst was sent by registered post to the respondent, but it was received back un-delivered since the respondent was not available at the given address. In order to prove Ex.P-12, Dr. N.P. Aggarvval (PW 3) was examined by the prosecution. On examination of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it cannot be said that it calls for no interference in this appeal against acquittal filed by the State, as would be evident from the discussion hereinafter. 5. When a reference is made to the statement of PW-1, Food Inspector, there is nothing on record to suggest that in what manner the sample curd was drawn by PW-1 Food Inspector. In the ordinary course of things in order to make the sample representative and homogeneous it was required that vertical cut should be applied to the curt. There is nothing in the statement of Food Inspector (PW-1) in that behalf. Besides this, prosecution under the provisions the Act is in the nature of private complaint. In order to constitute an offence all facts need to be pleaded. In paragraph 2 of the complaint filed by the Food Inspector (PW-1), on the basis of which prosecution had been launched, it is only mentioned that the curd is Kunda was divided into Tour segments by marking and curd of one segment was taken out in a clean and dry Brass Lota. It may be appropriate to mention here that the omission to state all the necessary ingredients so as to demonstrate that the requirements of law had been met and in the event of omission, as in the present case, the respondent is well within his rights to urge that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against him. 6. Learned Assistant Advocate General after referring to the statement of Food Inspector (PW-1) fairly conceded that there is no evidence to suggest that vertical cut was given to the curds before drawing sample. In case of curd it has been held by the Honorable Apex Court as well as by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that for taking sample of the curd vertical cut needs to be applied and facts also need to be mentioned which both requirements are lacking in the present case. In case of curd it has been held by the Honorable Apex Court as well as by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that for taking sample of the curd vertical cut needs to be applied and facts also need to be mentioned which both requirements are lacking in the present case. Reference can usefully be made in this behalf of 1995 Suppl (3) SCC 405 K. Hari Kumar , S/o Karunakarm Nair vs. Food Inspector Punaloor Municipality, as well as to 1987 Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases Vol -I, page 2, State of Haryana vs. Kameshwar. 7. Now coming to the question of sanctions according by PW-3 vide Ex.P-12. In this case there seems to be very peculiar situation. Vide Ex.DA, 5 cases appear to have been put up before the Local Health Authority for according sanction. For ready reference its contents are reproduced below:- "Dy. No. 2058 Dated 19.5.86 Dy. No. 2035 Dated 19.5.86 Dy. No. 2034 Dated 19.5.86 Dy. No. 2036 Dated 19.5.86 Dy. No. 2037 Dated 19.5.86 The PUCs placed below are received from Shri G.R. Puri, Food Inspector to prosecute the following persons under PFA Act, 1954. The F.I. has also submitted the original documents in case files. The documents may Please be perused & the sanctions may be granted. 1. Sh. Rajbir Singh 2. Sh. Ram Swaroop 3. Sh. Joginder Lal 4. Sh. Kesho Lal 5. (a) M/s Bimal Prashad Kulbhushan through Sh.Bimal Prashad. b) M/s Naresh & Co. Yamuna Nagar. Fair sanction drafts are added, may please be signed for issue if approved." 8. Thereafter Ex P-12, sanction appears to have been granted by the Local Health Authority authorising the Food Inspector (PW-1) to launch the execution. Ex.DA slows that draft sanction had already been put up before PW-3, in all the five files, referred to in Ex.DA. 9. Needless to point out here in the context of sanction that grant/refusal of sanction by the authority clothes with such powers is not mere formality. Authority concerned is required to apply its mind to all the facts and material produced before it and thereafter on consideration of such materials to act further In the instant case without application of mind draft sanction had already been put up before PW-3 which is impermissible in law to be done. Authority concerned is required to apply its mind to all the facts and material produced before it and thereafter on consideration of such materials to act further In the instant case without application of mind draft sanction had already been put up before PW-3 which is impermissible in law to be done. It was for the Local Health Authority i.e. PW -3 that on examination of material on record put up before him to have dealt with the matter, but it was on examination of the matter by some-body else that the draft was put up which was signed by him, although while appearing in court Dr. N.K.. Aggarwal (PW-3) had tried to justify his sanction, but the fact remains that in the peculiar background, facts and circumstances of the case in the opinion of this court Ex.P-12 is the result of non-application of mind and without examination of the relevant record pertaining to this case. To be fair to Shri Chauhan, a submission urged to ignore the sanction being defective needs to be noticed. Learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that unless prejudice was shown by the respondent, defective sanction by itself cannot be made a ground to dis-lodge the prosecution. In this context it may be appropriately noticed that grant of proper and valid sanction in accordance with law is the basis of authority in the Food Inspector to initiate against the person whose article of food Lad been found to be adulterated. Thus, if the submission of Shri Chauhan is taken to die logical end, then it can be urged further that even in a case where sanction is not accorded still the prosecution can continue because no prejudice is caused to the accused concerned, respondent in the present case. This argument has been raised simply to be rejected. 10. As already observed the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour at Nahan dated 1st June, 1993 calls for no interfering ence in this appeal on both the grounds referred to hereinabove. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Respondent is on bail, his personal and surety bond is hereby discharged. Fine, if deposited, be refunded to the respondent. -