Judgment : This revision filed under Secs.397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is canvassed by the petitioners 1 to 4 herein, who are the accused respectively before the Learned Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Coimbatore in C.C.No. 497 of 1988, against whom a charge under Secs.7(1)andl6(1)(a)(i) read with Sec.2(i)(a)and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, was framed and of which, when they were questioned, the petitioners pleaded not guilty. 2. Short facts which led to the filing of this revision are stated as follows: The second petitioner was the owner of the business enterprises by name Ranganayaki Enterprises situated at No.25, Aerodrome Road, Coimbatore, while the first petitioner was the employee under her and looking after the sales on 8. 1986. The fourth petitioner was the proprietor of the third petitioner by name Sri Gayathri Agencies situated at 473, R.G.Street, Coimbatore, a firm of Foods and General merchants. P.W.1 the Food Inspector claims that she is the complainant before the court below and that at about 9.45 a.m. on 8. 1986, she made a statutory purchase of six packets of 100 grams each of coriander powder in all totalling to 600 grams from the first petitioner in packets bearing manufacturer’s name in the label as Sri Gayathri Agencies, namely the third petitioner herein at Rs.10.50 and that the said powder kept for sale since was suspected to be adulterated, she prepared Form VI and served copies of the said form on petitioners 1 to 3. After observing the necessary formalities in taking the samples and packing the same as per the Rules. P.W.1 prepared Form VII and after completing the report sent one sample to the Analyst along with Form VII at Coimbatore on the same day. She has stated that she despatched the two remaining sample packets to the Local Health Authority with Form VII under proper acknowledgment. She had also sent the original seal used to seal the samples with one Form VII and sent to Public Analyst, under the acknowledgement Ex.P-7. The Analyst report dated 19. 1986 was received in Form III and in that it was stated that the sample does not conform to the standard for coriander powder and that it contained excess ash to the extent of 10 per cent and that therefore, the sample was found adulterated. The Analyst report dated 19. 1986 was received in Form III and in that it was stated that the sample does not conform to the standard for coriander powder and that it contained excess ash to the extent of 10 per cent and that therefore, the sample was found adulterated. Therefore, she laid the complaint against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Secs.7(1) and 16(1) (a)(i) read with Sec.2(i)(a) & (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as amended. 3. After the examination of the complainant above referred as P.W.1 the learned Magistrate framed a charge against all the accused/petitioners for the offence under the above section of law and for which when questioned, all the petitioners as accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. At this stage, challenging the very framing of the charge as there was inadequate proper materials and evidence to frame the charge, this revision is canvassed. 4. Though several grounds were urged in the grounds of revision, Mr.V.Gopinath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, draw my attention to the legal impediment for framing a charge in this case, namely, that the sanctioning authority while according sanction to prosecute the accused under Sec.20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has not looked into the case materials produced before him, nor applied his mind with reference to various materials and that without doing so, has mechanically consented to prosecute the accused, which is legally tainted with every serious infirmity as decided by the settled principle of law and in short, the learned counsel projected his first attack on the basis of Sec.20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter called as the Act, which reads as follows: “No prosecution for an offence under this Act, not being an offence under Sec.14 or Sec.l4-A shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government Provided that a prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted by a purchaser or recognised consumer Association referred to in Sec.12, if he or it produce in court a copy of the report of the Public Analyst along with the complaint”. In the light of the above section of law, referring the sanction order Ex.P-10 marked by the learned trial Magistrate in this case, was subjected to a severe criticism by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. A mere casual look at Ex.P-10 clearly shows that the Local Health Authority, who is a person to grant sanction to prosecute the revision petitioners who are the accused, has not followed the mandatory principles in built in Sec.20 of the Act by giving a mere consent. The words “I/ We consent” found in Ex.P-10 in print with no words or remarks of any kind by the sanctioning authority clinches the fact, on materials adduced in this case, that the sanctioning authority, to prosecute the above petitioners/accused had not accorded the sanction by applying its mind or as contemplated by Sec.20 of the Act. In my considered view, this major loophole provides a serious stroke and clear jolt to the entire prosecution case and accordingly, the charge framed against all the petitioners are found to be vitiated for the following reasons. Following the legal ratios enunciated in A.K.Roy v. State of Punjab, (1986)4 S.C.C. 326 : 1986 S.C.C. (Crl.) 443: (1986)3 F.A.C. 66: (1986)2 A.P.L.J. (S.C.) 34:1986 Crl.L.J. 2097: A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 2160, Chunni Lal v. State, 1974 Crl.L.J. 13 by a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court State v.Appuswami, 1980 L.W. (Crl.) 196a ruling of this Court), Ramandhal Srivabhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat, (1991)1 E.F.R. 547 (a ruling of the Gujarat High Court), Shyam Lal v. State, (1991)2 E.F.R. 277 (a ruling of the Delhi High Court), Adda Kasivisweswara Rao v. Stale of A.P., (1991)2 E.F.R 416, a ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, this Court in an unreported judgment rendered in C.A.No.946 of 1987 on the question of the legal mandate in built in Sec.20 of the Act which are to be followed, has held as follows: “13. Thus, in the light of the legal ratios well enunciated in the above case laws mostly relied on by the learned counsel Mr.Gopinathan, if applied to the facts of the present case, more particularly to the complaint filed by P.W.1 against the respondent accused herein, it is seen from the original complaint that it is in printed form and the columns have been filled by hand-writing with all the necessary details and particulars, much worse too is seen in the reverse side of the complaint. The words ‘I consent’ is in the printed form followed by the subsequent words”to launch the prosecution“written in ink. These words are found on the left hand side column of the reverse of the complaint. Below that it appears in the print, the column for signature of the Food Inspector, or the Sanitary Inspector. On the right hand side, the Health Officer and Local Health Authority has signed it. This part of the supposed sanction was taken as a subject of severe attack by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused. At the outset, I may observe that there is every force and substance in his contention. 14. On the right hand side, the Health Officer and Local Health Authority has signed it. This part of the supposed sanction was taken as a subject of severe attack by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused. At the outset, I may observe that there is every force and substance in his contention. 14. A conjoined reading of Sec.20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act would clearly envisage that the duty of the Local Health Authority or the competent authority in according its sanction for prosecution would not amount to or cannot be taken as an empty formality but however, it was clearly and demonstrably made out by the Courts of Law in this country that the intention of the legislature in providing for the competent authority to sanction to launch the prosecution for offences under the Act, to be exercised with due care and caution, which would mean, that they should go into all the materials and records placed by the Sanitary Inspector pertaining to the relevant facts constituting the offences and then only, on being satisfied with the materials underlying the records, prima facie atleast, the competent authority has to record its sanction and it cannot be taken that it has to accord its sanction so mechanically without applying its mind and this process, has been in built in the above section for the simple object that vexatious launching of the prosecution is to be avoided at any cost and that was the one and only reason, the according of sanction under Sec.20(1) of the Act has been provided in the enactment. Thus, it is the well settled judicial view, that the Local Health Authority while according its sanction to its Sanitary Inspector or any other person to launch the prosecution against any person, must apply its mind to all the relevant materials and papers placed before it and on being satisfied with the prima facie case against the person against whom the offence is alleged, then for the reasons expressly to be stated, he must accord the sanction for prosecution. Otherwise, it goes without saying, that the sanction accorded is bad in law and not in compliance with the legal mandate inbuilt in the above section. I have carefully perused the so-called sanction accorded by the Health Officer and Local Health Authority on 7. 1986 in six words-sentence as above stated. Otherwise, it goes without saying, that the sanction accorded is bad in law and not in compliance with the legal mandate inbuilt in the above section. I have carefully perused the so-called sanction accorded by the Health Officer and Local Health Authority on 7. 1986 in six words-sentence as above stated. The so-called sanction does not even visualise any perusal of the records produced before him, nor even the competent authority has satisfied with the prima facie materials available in the records placed before him in according the sanction. In the light of the above legal laches pointed out by the learned counsel Mr.Gopinathan, I am fully satisfied to hold, that the sanction accorded in this case, is bad in law and is clearly in the teeth of Sec.20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and accordingly, no prosecution can be launched.” 5. A mere perusal of Ex.P-10 in the instant case clearly goes to show that it bears no distinction between the sanction accorded in the case laws referred above. Therefore, I am firm in holding that the ratio and observation with finding given in the above unreported judgment is squarely applicable to the facts in this case. I have heard Mr.S.Shanmughavelayudham, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in this regard. 6. Thus, it is seen that the sanction order Ex.P-10 in this case is bad in law for want of legal sanction. On this ground alone, the charge framed by the court below is liable to be quashed and without looking the above material framing charge against the petitioners who are the accused before the trial court and subjecting them to the criminal trial is not within the province of the accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence. Therefore, 1 am fully constrained to hold that no prosecution can be launched against the petitioners for the abovesaid reasonings. In the light of the above legal laches, there exists no need to look into the other grounds. 7. In the result, on the ground aforesaid alone the revision stands succeeded, and accordingly it is allowed. Consequently, the charge framed by the learned Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Coimbatore in C.C.No.497 of 1988 dated 10. 1988 is hereby quashed.