JUDGMENT 1. - This is a State appeal and accused respondent Laxmi Chand was acquitted from the charge of Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh by his judgment dated 4.4.1984. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was that Pushti Vailabh Pan, the was the Food Inspector of the area who purchased sample of Til oil from accused respondent on 28.11.1975 for the purpose of analysis. The sample was divided in three botles which were sealed and one of the sample bott was given to the accused respondent. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst which found it to be adulterated as the same was not of the standard prescribed for purety under the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Thereafter sanction was obtained and complaint was filed against the respondent. PW Food Inspector Shri Pushti Vallabh Pandey was examined and then charge was framed against the accused respondent. Then he was further cross examined. Two other witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Then an application was moved to examine Public Analyst who was examined on 21.3.1984. Thereafter accused respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate, after hearing both the parties, acquitted the accused on the ground that A.P.P. was not authorised to prosecute the case as held in a Single Bench judgment of this Court reported in State of Rajasthan v. Naggiram, 1983 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) page 666 . 3. I have heard learned Public Prosecution as well as learned counsel for the accused respondent. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the judgment of learned Magistrate should be set aside as Rajasthan High Coup in a Division Bench judgment Kunti Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) page 531 , held that when there was written consent of competent authority for instituting the case, Assistant Public Prosecutor can present complaint and presentation of complaint by Food Inspector personally was not necessary. He submitted that the case be remanded for passing the sentence. 5. He submitted that the case be remanded for passing the sentence. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent accused submitted State of Rajasthan v. Keshavdeo, 1989 RCC page 363 , in which the view expressed by this Court was that if the accused was acquitted on the basis of view of law applicable at the time of occurrence, even if a different view is now possible, there would be no justification for interfering with the order of acquittal. He also drew my attention to illegality committed in this case by the trial court. He carried me through the order-sheets of the file of the trial court in which it is found that on 9.1.1980 accused respondent submitted an application that the sample be sent to the Central Food Laboratory for the purpose of analysis. Learned Magistrate then heard both the parties and ordered on 11.3.1980 that accused respondent may deposit the fee and then sample be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. In compliance of this order it appears that the sample was not sent but the Presiding Officer carelessly passed orders that the report was not received and that it should be awaited. Ultimately on 26.2.1983 the accused respondent again moved an application that since the Central Food Laboratory was established at Gaziabad, for the area concerned in this case, the sample be sent to Gaziabad and he in compliance of the order deposited Rs. 40/- on 11.4.1983 and Rs. 2000/- on 12.4.1983. But it appears that no report from the Central Food Laboratory was obtained. The file does not reveal whether the sample was sent or not. This has definitely caused prejudice to the respondent. 6. Learned counsel also drew my attention to sanction Ex. P/8 and submitted that it was a typed blank proforma which has been filled in, that means that the officer who gave sanction did not apply his mind to the facts of the case. He cited a number of authorities of the Rajasthan High Court in which it was so held that in such cases the authority which gave sanction did so without applying the mind. So far as Division Bench judgment reported in Kuntilal's case (supra) is concerned, it was held that when written consent of competent authority for institution of case by A.P.P. was given then the A.P.P. could present complaint. So far as Division Bench judgment reported in Kuntilal's case (supra) is concerned, it was held that when written consent of competent authority for institution of case by A.P.P. was given then the A.P.P. could present complaint. In the case in hand the sanction Ex. P/8 does not show that the APP was authorised to launch the prosecution, instead it is stated therein that Pushti Vallabh Pandey was authorised to launch the prosecution. In view of this fact also the order of acquittal by the learned Magistrate appears to be right. 7. So far as appeals against acquittals are concerned, the settled law is that the appellate court will not interfere decision of trial court unless there is perversity in the judgment. (See Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (1991) 1 SCC page 166) . 8. In view of above discussion, I do not find a force in this appeal it is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******