Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. The respondent was tried for an offence under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) on the allegation that the sample of milk taken on 19.11.1985 from him was found to be adulterated. Sample was sent for analysis to Central Food Laboratory and was again found to be adulterated. The trial court acquitted the accused on the sole ground that a fresh complaint was required to be filed when report of Central Laboratory was obtained as the earlier complaint was based on report of the Public Analyst which stood superseded by the report of re-analysis under section 13(2) of the Act. Reliance was placed on a decision of Single Bench of Delhi High Court in Manohar Lal v. State, 1989(1) RCR(Criminal) 248 (Delhi) : 1989(1) C.L.R. 416 and Single Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Rattan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1992(1) RCR(Criminal) 36 (H.P.) : 1991 Cri. L.J. 2875. 2. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the view taken by the learned trial court in erroneous in law. It was held in Manohar Lals case supra that the sanction must be based on application of mind and in Rattan Lals case supra, it was held that when there is a wide difference in the two reports, fresh sanction was necessary under section 20(1) of the Act. None appeared for the respondent. 3. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the State and perused the record. 4. I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Under section 20 of the Act, sanction is required at the stage of initiation of prosecution but there is no requirement of a fresh sanction at post institution stage. The view of a Full Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Rattan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 36 (H.P.) : (1989)2 FAC 190 which was similar to the view taken in Rattan Lals case supra was expressly over-ruled by the Apex Court in Food Inspector, Ernakulam and another v. P.S. Sreenivasa Shenoy, 2000(3) RCR(Criminal) 462 (SC) : (2000)6 Supreme Court Cases 348 while approving the view of Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in Prahlabhai Ambalal Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1985(1) RCR(Criminal) 229 (Gujarat) (FB) : (1984)2 FAC 27 : 1984 Cri LJ 1642 (Guj) (FB). The contention based on section 216(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure was also rejected on the ground that the said provision did not apply after institution of the prosecution when sanction has already been granted. Even otherwise, irregularity in sanction does not vitiate the trial unless failure of justice is occasioned as held by the Apex Court, after referring to section 465 of the Cr.P.C. in Kalpnath Rai v. State (through CBI), 1997(4) RCR(Criminal) 788 (SC) : AIR 1998 SC 201. 5. For the above reasons, the view taken by the trial court is held to be erroneous. However, having regard to the fact that occurrence is of the year 1985, when the accused was 64 years of age, it is not necessary to reverse the acquittal of the respondent. Learned counsel for the State has very fairly stated that the State was interested only in clarification of the law on the point even if acquittal is not reversed in this particular case at this discussion of time. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.