JUDGMENT Arnn Kumar Goel, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the record of this case. Petitioner in this case is aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan in Criminal Appeal No. 41-S/10 of 1992 dated 5th August, 1994. By means of this judgment, conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan in Case No 145/3 of 1990 under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been upheld sentencing the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months as well as to pay fine of Rs 1,000, in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner have raised 3 fold submission in this case, viz. that the complaint lacks material particulars regarding the manner in which the sample was taken and while appearing as PW-I complainant Shri S. C. Joshi has made improvement in that behalf. It was further urged in this behalf that unless the manner in which the sample of the curd was taken from the earthen pot where it was lying in the shop meant for sale to general public, PW-1 cannot be permitted to say so during the course of this evidence. This omission assumes significance according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner as in case of private complaint all necessary facts constituting the offence have to be pleaded In this behalf reference was firstly made to the complaint filed by the respondent seeking prosecution of the petitioner before the trial Court as well as to the statements of PWs 1 and 2 before the trial Court, Another ground urged was that statements of PWs 1 and 2 do not corroborate with each other regarding the fact whether the vessel was dry or not In this behalf, special reference was made to the statement of PW-1 where in his cross-examination he had stated that the bottles were dried by his peon and when a further reference is made to the statement of PW-2, this fact has been omitted. Last ground urged was that sanction in the instant case cannot be termed as legal sanction within the meaning of section 20 of the Act and in this behalf Ex. Last ground urged was that sanction in the instant case cannot be termed as legal sanction within the meaning of section 20 of the Act and in this behalf Ex. P-9 and Ex P-10, both were specifically referred to. All these contentions on behalf of the petitioner have been seriously controverted by the learned Assistant Advocate General, who has pointed out that no prejudice has been demonstrated by the petitioner because of omission to mention in the complaint the manner of taking of sample of the curd and further the omission is of such a nature which does not in any manner affects the merits of the case. So, the learned Assistant Advocate General urged that when the statements of PWs 1 and 2 are taken into account, they clearly bring home the guilt against respondent which fact is further supported from the report of the public analyst Ex. P-7. Similar was the submission of learned Assistant Advocate General regarding the omission of PW-2 to state that it was he who dried up the bottles wherein the curd after stirring had been put in Regarding sanction, learned Assistant Advocate General vehemently urged that no fault can be found therewith and in any event, no prejudice on account of such sanction has been pointed out by the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. Lastly, Shri Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, submitted that no illegality much less impropriety has been shown by the petitioner with the judgments passed by both the courts below, therefore, on this ground also, according to him, there is no merit in this revision petition. 3. Regarding non-mentioning of the sample having been taken of the curd by giving a vertical cut in the complaint, it may be appropriate to point out that since necessary facts which constitute an offence having been mentioned in the complaint and further if some essential fact/requirement is omitted from being mentioned therein, then the party concerned (petitioner in the present case) is well within his rights to urge that the prosecution is making improvements in its case as complained of during the course of its evidence. Similarly, the Food Inspector cannot be given a liberty of making improvements in the case under the Act as has been done in the present case regarding the manner of taking the sample of curd by him. Similarly, the Food Inspector cannot be given a liberty of making improvements in the case under the Act as has been done in the present case regarding the manner of taking the sample of curd by him. Admittedly, the factum of vertical having been given to the curd from where the sample was taken, is missing in the present case, ft has been held by the Honble Apex Court as well as by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court that as far as possible in case of curd vertical cut needs to be applied for taking the sample of curd as also facts need to be mentioned Reference may be made in this behalf to 1995 Supp (3) SCC 405, K Hari Kumar s/o Karunakaran Nair v. Food Inspector. Punaloor Municipality and to 1987 Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases Volume I, Page-2, The State of Haryana v. Rameshwar. 4. Case before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was that of milk but when reference is made to the Appendix B, Item A 11 02.04, it is clear that the standard applicable to the milk would also cover the case of curd/Dahi under the aforesaid Rule framed under the Act. 5. Next comes the question of sanction whether it is in accordance with law or not. In this behalf statement of PW-I as well as Ex. P-10 need to be examined. A perusal of Ex. P-10 shows that it is a typed document wherein something has been added in its last paragraph in black ink, portion B to B and portion A to A have been added in hand ; who has done it and under what circumstances, has not been explained. In case all the material documents were with the Local Health Authority* which passed the order contained in Ex P-10, then there was no necessity of adding portion A to A which is in hand and prima facie appears to be in hand of the person who signed it. Since the order of written consent is duly typed, the best person to say something in this behalf was the Chief Medical Officer, Solan and none else, who admittedly has not been examined. Since the order of written consent is duly typed, the best person to say something in this behalf was the Chief Medical Officer, Solan and none else, who admittedly has not been examined. Needless to point out in this behalf that the grant/refusal of sanction is not a mere formally but is a sacrosanct act to be performed by the authority concerned which is clothed with the same under law and the purpose of such authorization is to ward of frivolous cases. Instead of understanding the significance and importance of the sanction, the Chief Medical Officer concerned has just performed ritual. 6. The possibility of the sample being neither representative nor homogeneous cannot be completely ruled out in view of the omission of the manner in which the sample was taken, particularly as to how cut was applied by PW-1 to the curd and the omission to mention to it in complaint goes to the root of the case and thus the arguments advanced in this behalf by the learned Counsel for the petitioner deserve to be upheld. 7. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed and the orders passed by both the courts below, whereby the respondent has been convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid, are hereby set aside. The fine, if paid, be refunded to the petitioner whose bail bonds are discharged. Petition allowed.