JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well. This appeal is directed by the State against the judgment passed by Shri P. C. Sharma, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan in Case No. 22/3 of 1987 dated 29-3-1990. By this judgment respondents have been acquitted in a complaint filed by the State under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the said Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that on 29-1-1987, Food Inspector H. L. Pathak (PW 1) went to the shop of the respondents and after disclosing his identity showed his intention to take sample of toned milk for analysis by the Public Analyst in accordance with the provisions of the Act. At the relevant point of time respondents were in possession of 2.50 Kg. of toned milk in a Dibba. Out of the said quantity of milk, Food Inspector purchased 660 ML of toned milk on payment of Rs. 2.50 against receipt. Facts as revealed further are that before purchase the Food Inspector had stirred the milk in the Dibba thoroughly with 100 grams measure. Thereafter, the purchased milk was put into three neat and dry bottles in equal parts and 18 drops of formaline were added into each of the bottles. Each of the bottle was then stoppered and properly labelled as well as sealed in accordance with procedure prescribed under the Act. Signatures of the respondent No. 1 were obtained on each of the three bottles. The entire process of taking sample etc. was completed in the presence of Dr. Handa, Rajinder Kumar and Sant Ram peon. Thereafter, one part of the sample was sent to Public Analyst along with necessary documents and two parts were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Solan. On analysis, Public Analyst Punjab, Chandigarh vide his opinion Ex. PF opined that the contents of the sample are deficient in milk fat by 27 per cent and in milk solid not fat by 32 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard. After the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, intimation was sent to the respondent No. 2 regarding launching of prosecution and a copy of this report of Public Analyst was also attached with the said intimation, copy of which is placed on the file as Ex. After the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, intimation was sent to the respondent No. 2 regarding launching of prosecution and a copy of this report of Public Analyst was also attached with the said intimation, copy of which is placed on the file as Ex. PW-2/C and this intimation was despatched vide Ex. PW-2/D. 3. On receipt of the intimation, the respondents approached the trial Court for sending the sample to Central Food Laboratory vide application dated 24-3-1987. This prayer of the respondent was allowed and sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, who also opined vide its report Ex. PH that the sample does not conform to the standards laid down for toned milk under the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. 4. After the receipt of the opinion of the Central Food Laboratory, notice of accusation was put to the respondents through respondent No. 1 who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In support of its case, witnesses, namely, PW-1 H. L. Pathak, Food Inspector, PW-2 K. C. Verma dealing Assistant P.F.A., office of L.H.A., Solan, PW-3 Dr. J. Handa, Medical Officer, Incharge, C. H. Nahan, PW-4 Rajinder Kumar were examined, thereafter, respondent Ashok Kumar was examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C. Respondent also led defence evidence by examining DW-1 Mahinder Kumar, DW-2 Nutan Kaushal, DW-3 Narinder Kumar and thus closed the evidence. In addition to oral evidence as well as the documents referred to herein above, certain other documents like notice, receipt, Panchnama etc. were also duly proved and placed on record. 6. Shri M. L. Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General appearing in support of the appellant has argued that the acquittal of the respondent cannot be sustained being bad in law besides on the proved facts, according to him the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. In support of his these submissions, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of PWs. Nos. 1 to 4 as well as to the opinion of the Central Food Laboratory and has thus prayed for allowing this appeal. In support of his these submissions, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of PWs. Nos. 1 to 4 as well as to the opinion of the Central Food Laboratory and has thus prayed for allowing this appeal. On the other hand, Shri Baldev Singh Chaudhary while refuting the claim of the appellant has submitted that in the instant case, the sanction accorded by the Local Health Authority prima facie is contrary to law and in fact it is no sanction in the eyes of law and the appeal deserves dismissed on this short ground alone, without going into other questions. In support of his this submission he has adverted to sanction Ex. PJ. 7. A bare perusal thereto shows that it is a cyclostyled form and is filled in by some one else whereas it is signed by the Chief Medical Officer, Solan. There is no legal evidence to show that before signing Ex. PJ, what was the material that was put forth before the Chief Medical Officer who had signed it and what were the considerations which weighed with him before appending his signatures on this document. No record from the office of the Chief Medical Officer has been brought on record by any of the witnesses in this behalf. It could be done with reference to office record by showing before having appended his signatures, the authority concerned has taken into account all the relevant materials those were put forth before him when he signed Ex. PJ and it was signed only thereafter, after due consideration of all the materials concerning this case. Alternatively, relevant extracts from the office file showing that appropriate authority had applied its mind should have been brought on record. No attempt much less exercise was undertaken by the Food Inspector of the Chief Medical Officer, Solan to show that Ex. PJ was signed by the authority concerned after due consideration as well as after taking into account all the materials which were placed before him. 8. In the context of according sanction, it may be worthwhile to point out that grant of sanction is not a mere formality but it is to be accorded/refused after consideration of relevant material on the basis of which the authority concerned forms its opinion and accords the necessary sanction. 9. 8. In the context of according sanction, it may be worthwhile to point out that grant of sanction is not a mere formality but it is to be accorded/refused after consideration of relevant material on the basis of which the authority concerned forms its opinion and accords the necessary sanction. 9. It may further be appropriate to point out that proceedings to grant sanction to prosecute is an important matter as it constitutes a condition precedent to the institution of prosecution and the authority concerned has an absolute discretion to grant or withhold its sanction. A sanction which is accorded, as in the present case, in a perfunctory and mechanical manner is no sanction in the eyes of law. What has been done in Ex. PJ is while filling in the blanks by someone else other than the signatory thereof, there is nothing to show that how and in what manner the authority concerned had considered the whole material before it. In addition to this, the Court has also to see whether or not the sanctioning authority at the time of giving sanction was aware of the facts constituting the offence and had applied its mind to the same. Any change which may come in existence subsequently is wholly irrelevant. Needless to reiterate here that grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to the concerned accused against frivolous prosecution, respondents in the present case. In these circumstances, the provisions of Section 20 of the Act need to be strictly complied with before any prosecution is launched as in the present case. No doubt it is sufficient to mention here that it is implied that the necessity of application of mind on the part of the authority competent to grant the written consent, for its satisfaction that a prima facie case existed for the alleged offender to be put up before a Court and that it was reasonable, in the circumstances, to direct that he be tried by the Court of law. The purpose seems to avoid and prevent the launching of frivolous or harassing prosecution against the traders and the persons authorised can only give his consent in writing when he is satisfied that the launching of prosecution was in a public interest. 10. The purpose seems to avoid and prevent the launching of frivolous or harassing prosecution against the traders and the persons authorised can only give his consent in writing when he is satisfied that the launching of prosecution was in a public interest. 10. Applying these tests to the facts of the present case particularly with reference to Ex. PJ, it is manifestly clear that while signing this document, the authority concerned has not only acted in a mechanical manner but also has dealt with the whole matter in a perfunctory manner. Thus it has been rightly held by the trial Court that the sanction is not in accordance with law and the case of the appellant must fail on this short ground alone. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed