JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood. J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour at Nahan dated 2.7.1996 whereby respondent Som Parkash (hereinafter referred to as accused) has been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the accused was prosecuted without a valid sanction. Feeling dis-satisfied with the judgment of acquittal, State has preferred this appeal. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy, facts in brief may be noticed thus :— 3. Shri G.R. Puri (PW-3), the then Food Inspector of the District of Sirmour intercepted accused at Paonta Sahib on 29.10.1991 at about 2,00 p.m. Accused was found carrying milk drums for sale in Paonta Sahib. The milk was being carried on a bicycle. Accused on demand could not produce his licence to sell the milk to the Food Inspector. Accused disclosed his name to be Som Parkash. The Food Inspector expressed his desire to purchase the sample of the milk, carried by the accused, for the purpose of analysis. He accordingly served notice in writing Ext. PA on the accused. The milk was taken from a drum, containing about 20 kgs. of milk, after the drum had been thoroughly stirred with the milk measure carried by the accused. 750 MLs of milk was purchased on payment of Rs. 4.50 against receipt, Ex. P-13 from the accused in the presence of Shri Brij Mohan (PW-1). The milk so purchased was divided into three equal parts and each part was put in three neat, dry and clean bottles. 20 drops of 40% formaline were added in each bottle as preservative. Thereafter the bottles were affixed with labels and sealed. Signatures of the witness Shri Brij Mohan were obtained on the receipt. The memorandum was prepared on the spot. One part of the sample was subsequently sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh through a registered parcle alongwith specimen seal impression which was sent separately. The remaining two parts of the samples with two copies of the specimen signatures was deposited in the office of the Local Health Authority by the Food Inspector. The memorandum was prepared on the spot. One part of the sample was subsequently sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh through a registered parcle alongwith specimen seal impression which was sent separately. The remaining two parts of the samples with two copies of the specimen signatures was deposited in the office of the Local Health Authority by the Food Inspector. The Public Analyst, Punjab caused the sample to be analysed on 29.11.1991 and found that the sample was deficient in milk fat by 23.0% and in milk-solid-not-fat by 49.0% of the minimum prescribed standard and accordingly the sample of the milk was found to be adulterated within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Act. The Food Inspector moved an application before the Chief Medical Officer, Nahan for sanction to launch prosecution against the accused as required under Section 20 of the Act. After obtaining necessary sanction, Food Inspector filed a complaint before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib on 20.12.1991. Learned trial Magistrate vide his detailed judgment dated 29.6.1995 convicted the accused under Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In case of default in payment of fine, the accused is required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Feeling aggrieved by his conviction accused filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour district at Nahan as noticed earlier. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the appeal on the ground that the accused was prosecuted without a valid sanction and accordingly acquitted the accused. 5. It is in this background that the State has filed the present appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. R.M. Bisht, learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant-State and Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned Counsel for the accused and have also gone through the record. 7. Shri Bisht, learned Assistant Advocate General submits that the sanction accorded by the Local Health Authority, competent authority in the present case, is valid and no fault can be found with the sanction inasmuch as the sanction was accorded by the sanctioning authority after due application of mind and perusal of the record including the report of the Public Analyst. 8. 8. Learned Sessions Judge took a view that the Chief Medical Officer (Local Health Authority) issued the sanction without application of his mind and without looking into the facts and circumstances of the case. He arrived at this conclusion for the reason that a draft sanction was sent by the Food Inspector, alongwith relevant documents, when he made request to the Local Health Authority for the grant of sanction. Learned Sessions Judge concluded that as the Chief Medical Officer appended his signatures on the very draft sanction sent by the Food Inspector, therefore, there was lack of application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. Learned Sessions Judge relied upon State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hari Singh, PFA Cases 40 HP. In that case, Chief Medical Officer was found to have signed the sanction letter which was cyclostyled and the blank columns were filled by someone other than the sanctioning authority and in the circumstances, it was concluded that the sanction accorded by the sanctioning authority was not a valid sanction. 9. In the present case, points out Shri Bisht, there is sufficient evidence on record to show due application of mind by the Local Health Authority before he accorded sanction to prosecute the accused. Basti Ram (PW-2) was Dealing Assistant in the office of the Local Health Authority at the relevant time. It is his evidence that on receipt of the letter of the Food Inspector (Ex. PW-2/E) requesting for the sanction of the Local Health Authority to prosecute the accused, he submitted all the documents including the report of the Public Analyst and other related documents such as Form VI, Panchnama Form VII etc. to the Sanctioning Authority. It is his further evidence that sanctioning authority Dr. PL. Kapoor (Chief Medical Officer) signed the sanction order after going through all the documents. He also appended his seal and dated the sanction order (Ext. PW-2/C). There is nothing in the cross-examination to dispute this part of the testimony of Basti Ram except that the draft sanction was sent by the Food Inspector alongwith the request for grant of sanction to prosecute the accused and that the sanctioning authority signed that very draft sanction. He also appended his seal and dated the sanction order (Ext. PW-2/C). There is nothing in the cross-examination to dispute this part of the testimony of Basti Ram except that the draft sanction was sent by the Food Inspector alongwith the request for grant of sanction to prosecute the accused and that the sanctioning authority signed that very draft sanction. Now, merely because the Food Inspector sent the draft sanction and the same was signed by the sanctioning authority, after going through the relevant documents, would not mean that the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind before according sanction. There is no scope of dispute that pertinent material in connection with the sanction were placed before the sanctioning authority. It is also proved that the sanctioning authority signed the draft sanction after going through such material. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the draft sanction was signed by the competent authority in a mechanical manner. 10. The approach of the learned Sessions Judge, to say, is not correct. 11. Section 20(1) of the Act contemplates that no person can be prosecuted under Section 14 or Section 14-A of the Act unless written consent of the person authorised in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government or State Government has been obtained. 12. It is not in dispute, in the present case, that the Local Health Authority has been authorised to launch prosecution under Act. Section 20(1) of the Act may be reproduced for convenience:— "20(1) No prosecution for an offence under this Act, not being an offence under Section 14 or Section 14-A, shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government : Provided that a prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted by a purchaser or recognised consumer association referred to in Section 12, if he or it produces in Court a copy of the report of the public analyst along with the complaint." Sanction accorded by the sanctioning authority placed on record is Ext. PW-2/G. This sanction is a detailed order. PW-2/G. This sanction is a detailed order. Last paragraph of this order reads:— "While according the written consent, I have gone through the application and all the accompanying documents as submitted by the Food Inspector and have granted the written consent in this case for the aforesaid offences, after applying my mind fully to the facts of the case, as a prima facie case is made out against accused Som Prakash." 13. Sanction is dated 12.12.1991 this date is in the hand of the sanctioning authority. The words "against accused Som Prakash" have been added by the sanctioning authority in his own hand. It shows that the sanctioning authority went through the material placed before him before according the sanction. 14. Shri Bisht has drawn my attention to Suresh H. Rajput etc. v. Bhartiben Pravinbhai Soni and others, PFA 1996(1) Page 1. In that case, the learned Magistrate found that the sanction was cyclostyled order and it was held that the authority did not apply its mind and, therefore, the grant of sanction was invalid. In that case, material portion of the sanction order read:— "I hereby give consent to the Food Inspector Shri S.H. Rajput to prosecute (name of the accused was mentioned in each case) For contravening the provision of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as alleged in the above report of the Food Inspector." There was a note appended to the sanction which reads as under:— "This consent is given after going through the analysis report of Public Analyst and other pertinent papers and documents and the nature of offence committed by the alleged offenders, as required by Section 20 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954." In this context, their Lordships of the Apex Court observed:— "The sanction was accorded by the sanctioning authority after going through the material such as analysis report and other pertinent material and at that stage, it was not for the sanctioning authority to weigh pros and cons and then to find whether this could end in conviction or acquittal or the adulteration was abnormal or marginal etc....." Their Lordships concurred with the following observations in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 222:— "It is equally well settled that before granting sanction the authority or the appropriate Government must have before it the necessary report and the material facts which prima facie establish the commission of offence charged for and that appropriate Government would apply their mind to those facts. The order of sanction is only an administrative act and not a quasi-judicial one nor is a Us involved. Therefore, the order of sanction need not contain detailed reasons in support thereof as was contended by Sri Jain. But the basic facts that constitute the offence must be apparent on the impugned order and the record must bear out the reasons in that regard." 15. As noticed earlier, a perusal of the sanction order Ext. PW-2/ G shows that the consent was accorded by the sanctioning authority after having considered all the relevant documents including the report of the public analyst which fact finds support from the evidence of Basti Ram (PW-2). The sanction, in the circumstances, does not suffer from any infirmity. 16. Shri R.K. Gautam, learned Counsel for the respondent-accused in the end submits that the sample taken by the Food Inspector for the purpose of analysis was not of representative character as he did not stir the milk properly before lifting the sample. I am afraid the contention is misplaced and cannot be accepted. There is unchallenged testimony of the Food Inspector (PW-3) who categorically states that he had stirred the milk in the drum itself with the milk measure before the sample was lifted. In this own words "About 20 Kgs. of milk which was in a drum was well stirred with the milk measure and 750 ml. of milk was taken from the accused on payment of Rs. 4.50 vide receipt PB." There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness which may show that the sample was lifted without stirring the milk. Only suggestion put to this witness is that the milk was not stirred. 17. Learned Counsel for the accused contends that conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of the Food Inspector, particularly when the independent witness has not supported the prosecution case. It is now well settled that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the Food Inspector, if believed. There is no reason to disbelieve the Food Inspector in the present case. It is now well settled that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the Food Inspector, if believed. There is no reason to disbelieve the Food Inspector in the present case. The evidence of the Food Inspector can not be said to be inherently suspect. The Food Inspector as observed in State of U.P. v. Hanif, 1992(2) Crimes 14, discharges his public functions in lifting the articles of food for the purpose of analysis. Testimony of the Food Inspector is to be tested on its own merits and if acceptable can be relied upon to convict the accused, particularly when there is no personal allegation against the Food Inspector. In State of U.P. v. Hanif (supra), milk sold by the accused was found adulterated. In that case, it was contended that except the Food Inspector, no other witness was examined to corroborate the Food Inspector and the Food Inspector being interested party, the evidence was not sufficient to convict the accused without corroboration. In this context, their Lordships of the Apex Court observed thus:— "......It is not the law that the evidence of Food Inspector must necessarily need corroboration from independent witnesses. The evidence of the Food Inspector is not inherently suspect, nor be rejected on that ground. He discharges the public function in purchasing an article of food for analysis and if the article of food so purchased in the manner prescribed under the Act is found adulterated, he is required to take action as per law. He discharges public duty. His evidence is to be tested on its own merits and if found acceptable the Court would be entitled to accept and rely on to prove prosecution case. If in a given case where the factum of the very purchase is put in question and any personal allegations are made against the Food Inspector, perhaps it may be necessary for the prosecution to dispel the doubt and to examine the Panch witnesses seeking corroboration to the evidence of the Food Inspector. In this case the factum of purchase by the Food Inspector was not disputed. Even in the appellate Court, the contention raised was regarding the delay in sending the public analyst report to the authority and laying the prosecution, but no other controversy was raised. In this case the factum of purchase by the Food Inspector was not disputed. Even in the appellate Court, the contention raised was regarding the delay in sending the public analyst report to the authority and laying the prosecution, but no other controversy was raised. Under these circumstances, we find no substance in the contention that the evidence of Food Inspector must be corroborated by independent evidence." 18. In the present case, I find that only point raised before the learned First Appellate Court was that conviction was bad for want of valid sanction. I find that the independent witness has not supported the Food Inspector, but this point was not raised before the learned Sessions Judge. Though Brij Mohan, independent witness associated with the lifting of the sample, initially did not support the prosecution, but then Food Inspector cross-examined this witness with the due permission of the learned trial Magistrate. The witness categorically admitted that the Food Inspector purchased 750 ml. milk as sample from the accused on payment of Rs. 4.59 =md the accused singed it as Som Parkash. He also admits that the sample was purchased from a drum which contained about 20 Kgs. of milk. Therefore, in this case, the lifting of the sample from the accused is not in dispute and it is rather supported by the independent witness. 19. Learned Counsel for the respondent refers to Ram Kishan v. State of Haryana, 1997 RCR 462 Punjab & Haryana. In this case, the Food Inspector merely stated that he stirred the milk, but method of stirring was not stated by him. In this context, it was observed that there was no evidence on record to show that the milk was stirred in accordance with the method laid down by a Division Bench in State of Punjab v. Paramjit Singh, (1992) XIX LT 234, to make it homogeneous with a clean stick or milk measurement or plunger. In the present case, Food Inspector has categorically stated that the milk was stirred with milk measurement and no fault can be found with the method employed by the Food Inspector. 20. Contra Shri Bisht refers to Food Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Baroda v. Madanlal Ramlal Sharma and another, (1983) 1 SCC 135, which lays down that use of instrument is not necessary for stirring the milk to make it homogeneous and representative of the entire milk. 20. Contra Shri Bisht refers to Food Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Baroda v. Madanlal Ramlal Sharma and another, (1983) 1 SCC 135, which lays down that use of instrument is not necessary for stirring the milk to make it homogeneous and representative of the entire milk. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, their Lordships observed thus:— "8. Our attention was not drawn to any provision in the Act or the Rules making it obligatory that churning should be done with some machine so as to make a sample homogeneous and representative sample. We are conscious of the fact that in milk and milk preparations including curd, it is distinctly possible that the fat settles on the top and in order to find out whether the milk or its preparation such as curd has prescribed content, the sample must be homogeneous and representative so that the analysis can furnish reliable proof of nature and content of the article of food under analysis. For this purpose churning is one of the methods of making the sample homogeneous and representative. But having said this, there is nothing in the Act or the Rules which prescribes that churning must be done by some instrument, and that churning done by hand would not provide a homogenous, and representative sample. Common sense dictates that articles of food like milk and curd when churned with hand would properly mix up from top to bottom. Mere so when the quantity is either 600 gms. which was the quantity purchased or 2-1/2 Kgs., which was the quantity in the container. There was evidence that the hurning was done by spoon. But even if the High Court found that evidence unreliable and evidence of defence witness Devsibhai Ramjibhai so much reliable that it was prepared to act upon it disagreeing with the other evidence, the evidence of Devsibhai Ramjibhai was that churning was done with hand, and he did not say that the churning was not effective. We therefore, find it difficult to subscribe to the view of the High Court that the churning is required to be done by some instrument or that the churning done by hand would not meet with the requirements of making a sample homogeneous and representative. There has to be done a finding that the churning done with hand was not adequate. There is no such finding. There has to be done a finding that the churning done with hand was not adequate. There is no such finding. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in confirming the acquittal on this ground." 21. As already noticed in this case, milk was stirred by the milk measure carried by the accused himself and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the sample was not representative of the milk. 22. I find that the accused in this case is not as innocent as he would have us believe. When sample was lifted by the Food Inspector, he gave his name as Som Prakash. Therefore, the various documents could not be served upon him by post. When he was brought before the trial Court on 15.11.1993, he made a statement that his name is Om Parkash and Food Inspector never lifted any sample from him and that he is not Som Prakash and he has nothing to do with this case. In fact, on 15.11.1993 when he appeared before the learned Magistrate, he made a categorical statement that he is not concerned with the case nor the documents Exts. PA to PC bears his signatures. Later accused turned around and admitted that the sample of milk, in fact, was purchased from him by the Food Inspector and he signed various documents as Som Prakash at the instance of the Food Inspector. This conduct of the accused only shows that he is a schemist and gave wrong name to the Food Inspector to escape prosecution punishment. Such conduct of the accused cannot be approved of. 23. No other point was urged before me. 24. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge dated 2.7.1996 is set aside. Judgment of the learned trial Magistrate is restored. Accused shall surrender to his bail bonds to serve sentence. Appeal allowed.