JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Gocl, J. (Oral): This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu dated 21st October. 1995 whereby the conviction and sentence inflicted Union the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu on 9th May, 1995 has been upheld. 2. Petitioner was prosecuted for having committed offence under Section 16(1- A) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954. (Hereinafter referred to as the Act). After continent of the trial, petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 16(1-A) of the Act for selling adulterated as well as mis-branded Heldi powder (turmeric. In default of payment of fine, petitioner was ordered to under go further simple imprisonment for 6 months. This conviction and sentence imposed by trial Court was upheld in appeal by the appellate Court below, hence this revision. 3. So far the facts relating to PW-1 Food Inspector visiting the premises of (he petitioner on 16th June, 1992 at about 11.50 A.M. as well as taking sample of Biggul Brand Haldi which was stored by the petitioner in his shop premises at Alu-Ground, Manali, meant for sale is concerned, it is not in dispute. After observing the codal formalities of purchase as well as packing and scaling of article of food and its dispatch to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh for analysis and opinion is concerned, it is amply established from the statement of PW-I and is corroborated by the report of Public Analyst dated 23rd, July. 1992 vide Ex.PW-1/H. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that since there is infraction of Rule 7(3), Rule 14 and Rule 44(h) of the Rules framed under the Act which has materially prejudiced his client, as such he is entitled to acquittal. Further contention raised in support of this revision was that sanction accorded by the Local Health Authority, vide Ex.PW-I/1 is not according to law and it has not been proved as required under Section 20 of the Act and above all the Chief Medical Officer, who had accorded the same, should have been examined in the face of cross examination directed against the witnesses, particularly, PWs I & 2. Two more submissions were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the report of Public Analyst was not sent after launching of prosecution as required under Section 13(2) of the Act, thus a valuable right was denied to the petitioner and secondly for impleading Capital Sales Agency at. Samkhetar Bazar, Mandi rejection of the petitioners application under Section 20-A of the Act was erroneous which has further resulted in causing prejudice. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ex.AW-1/A for nil intents and purposes was a warranty within .he meaning of the provisions of (he Act and thus, the article of food i.e Haldi power was established to have been purchased by the petitioner from the said firm. 5. Dealing with the last two points raised first, when a reference is made to the evidence produced on the file, particularly, to Ex.PW-2/A, the memo along with which copy of report of Public Analyst was sent by registered post A.D. to the petitioner as well as the postal receipt and acknowledgment which have been duly produced and proved by the prosecution in this case and further no cross examination having been directed to PW-"1 regarding the acknowledgment Ex.PW-2/B, the plea raised regarding non- dispatch as well as non receipt of the report of Public Analyst has no basis and the same is accordingly rejected. 6. So far as the plea regarding rejection of application under Section 20-A of the Act is concerned, against when a reference is made to Ex. AW-1 /A, it is clear that the article of food, viz. Biggul Brand Haldi which was purchased by PW-1 for the purposes of analysis from the petitioner is not connected with the said bill. It only speaks to Haldi and nothing else. In this view of the matter the point raised by &e learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected and it is ordered accordingly. 7. Biggul Brand Haldi which was purchased by PW-1 for the purposes of analysis from the petitioner is not connected with the said bill. It only speaks to Haldi and nothing else. In this view of the matter the point raised by &e learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected and it is ordered accordingly. 7. Now coming to the infraction of Rule 7(3) of the Rules framed under the Act In the instant case date of taking sample is 16th June, 1992 whereas the report of the Public Analyst is dated 23rd July, 1992 i.e. within less than 40 days as required under die Act Thereafter admittedly, the same was sent by the Public Analyst to the authorities concerned as required under law, as such it cannot be said that mere is any infraction of this Rule, so far infraction of Rule 14 is concerned, no benefit can be derived by the petitioner because this is not a case where it can be said that because of improper. manner of sending sample for analysis any prejudice has been caused or moisture entered in the packet which was sealed, admittedly, as per the report of Public Analyst Ex.PWl/H, the Haldi powder was found to be containing non permitted col-tar-die Yellow shade, it cannot be said, no> is h the case of the petitioner that as a result of improper packing and sealing of the containers resulting in addition of the non permitted col- tar-die to the sample in question, therefore, this plea has been raised simply to be rejected. Rule 44(h), to which a reference was made, does not advance the case of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever as it only speaks that no person can sell turmeric containing any foreign susbstance. 8. Now remains the sole question regarding sanction accorded by the Local Health Authority vide Ex.PW-1/1 and its validity that need; to be examined in this case. In order to prove the sanction as well as its validity. Emphasis was laid by the learned Assistant Advocate General on the statements of PWs 1 & 2 before charge as well as to their cross examination directed to these witnesses after framing of charge. 9. In order to prove the sanction as well as its validity. Emphasis was laid by the learned Assistant Advocate General on the statements of PWs 1 & 2 before charge as well as to their cross examination directed to these witnesses after framing of charge. 9. No doubt, PW-1 Food Inspector while appearing at pre-charge stage has stated that all papers relating to sample along with the report of Public Analyst were put up by him before the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Y.C Faceky, who examined all the papers in is presence and signed those and then gave consent a4e Ex.PW-1/1. On the other hand, PW-2 Praveen Kumar, Dealer Assistant in the office of Local Heaitii Authority, in his pre- charge statement has stated that consent Ex.PW-1/1 was typed out by him after it had been dictated by the Chief Medical Officer. In his statement recorded after framing of charge, PW-1 Food Inspector has categorically stated that he had not sent the file of this case before the Chief Medical Officer. Although, PW-2 Praveen Kumar, in this cross examination has denied the suggestion made on behalf of defence that no diction was given by the chief Medical Officer to him as well as his having not typed out the consent letter and further that Ex. PW-1/1 is also not being signed by (ho Chief Medical Officer. However, he admits what was the record with Chief Medical Officer, he was not in a position to state as the only noted down what was dictated to him. 10. When the statements of PWs I and 2 recorded in pre-charge evidence as well as after framing of charge by the trial Court arc read together, it is clear that while according section as Claimed by the prosecution what was the material before the Chief Medical Officer and whether any thing was put up before him is not made out. PW-I in his pre-charge evidence has clearly stated that he had produced all the papers before Or, Y.C. Fackey who saw the papers and (hen after having appended his signatures gave consent for launching of prosecution wide Ex.PW-l/I. There is not mention about any dictation having been given by the Local Health Authority to P"W-2 as held out by the latter in his pre-charge evidence. In the ordinary course of things, if the dictation had been given as claimed by PW-2. In the ordinary course of things, if the dictation had been given as claimed by PW-2. both, in his recharge and after-charge evidence, then PW-I Food Inspector would have certainly stated that after perusal of all (he papers relating to this case including the report of Public Analyst, Local Health Authority examined the same and then dictated the consent to PW-2. Similarly, in case PW-I was present when the matter relating to concern was examined by the Local Health Authority, then in his statement PWls presence was bound to be noticed. This clearly goes to show that the sanction had not been accorded on consideration of the whole matter which fact finds support from the admissions of PW-I in his after -charge cross examination that he had not sent the file of this case to the Chief Medical officer, except for obtaining sanction there was no occasion much less requirement of his sending the file to the serious omission regarding material facts in the statements of PWs 1 & 2, it was necessary that the Chief Medical Officer Dr.Y.C. Facke, who had in fact accorded the sanction, to -have appeared and supported the case of the prosecution. 11. It is by now well settled that grant/refusal of sanction is not a mere formality but it is a sacrosanct act which has to be performed by the competent authority upon which law enjoins the duty fordoing the needful. 12. To be fair to Shri chauhan. learned Assistant advocate General, it may be noted here that he persisted while opposing this revision that Ex.PW-1/1 stands duly proved and the consent accorded vide this document by the Local Health Authority for launching the prosecution against the respondent stands duly proved and thus he urged for upholding the impugned judgment. In viewer the aforesaid, this plea is hereby rejected. 13. As a result of the aforesaid discussion this revision is allowed and (he judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu in Criminal Appeal No. 9/95 dated 21st October, 1995 upholding the judgment of the trial Court in Food Complaint No.290-I/92-78-lll/94 dated 9.5.1995 is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently the petitioner la acquitted of the charges for which he was convicted and sentenced by the Courts below. Fine, if deposited is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner, who is on bail and his bonds arc ordered to be discharged.