JUDGMENT Appellant is convicted under section 16(1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (hereinafter referred as to 'Act'). It is alleged that Food Inspector Raj Kumar Verma took sample of milk on 22.3.1991 in village Shamshabad, Distt. Vidisha at about 8. a.m. The sample was sent for analysis to Public Analyst and in the report the milk was found adulterated, therefore, permission for prosecution was granted by Deputy Director Food and Drugs Administration District Vidisha vide Ex. P-14. Trial Court convicted appellant and sentenced him for 6 months RI and fine of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that prosecution itself was incompetent. He submitted that sanction to prosecution under section 20 of the Act was not granted by the competent authority. He further submitted that sanction Ex. P-14 is without application of mind. Sanction Ex. P-14 was not proved properly. None of the witnesses has proved the signatures of the authority on this letter of sanction, therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the sanction under section 20 of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that provisions of section 20 of the Act are mandatory. He further submitted that complainant is also a prosecutor and applicant cannot be convicted on his sole testimony. The testimony of the complainant/prosecutor must be corroborated before conviction. Counsel for State is not in a position to confirm that Deputy Director of Food and Drugs Administration District Vidisha is notified by State Government as authority to sanction prosecution under section 20 of the Act. Even otherwise, no reliance can be placed upon Ex. P-14. The contents of this document were not proved. None of the witnesses has stated that this document bears the signatures of Deputy Director. The witness who has exhibited Ex. P-14 bears signatures of Dr. Smt. H. Kaur Sinha and Ex. P-14 bears her signatures. Dr. Smt. H. Kaur Sinha has not been examined as a witness. In the aforesaid circumstances it transpires that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the sanction under section 20 of the Act. The evidence of complainant namely Raj Kumar Verma is not corroborated by any other witness. Infact, no other witness was examined. The prosecution has not proved the case' beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, judgment and sentence of both the Courts below are set aside and appellant is acquitted. Sureties and bail bonds are discharged. Appeal is allowed. The evidence of complainant namely Raj Kumar Verma is not corroborated by any other witness. Infact, no other witness was examined. The prosecution has not proved the case' beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, judgment and sentence of both the Courts below are set aside and appellant is acquitted. Sureties and bail bonds are discharged. Appeal is allowed. The amount of fine so deposited be refunded to appellant.