G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the State represented by the District Food Inspector, Nizamabad against the judgment dated 16-8-1996 of the learned Sessions Judge, Nizamabad in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1995 acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, reversing the conviction given by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy in C. C. No. 204 of 1986, dated 28-4-1995 for the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is briefly as follows: the accused is running a kirana shop at Kamareddy. P. W. 1, the then Food Inspector, visited the shop of the accused on 31-12-1985 at about 2. 45 p. m. and found the accused conducting the business in the shop. P. W. 1, after ascertaining that the accused is the proprietor of the shop, introduced himself as Food Inspector and expressed his intention to inspect the shop. Accordingly, he inspected the kirana shop of the accused in the presence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 - mediators - and found 5 Kgs. of Mirchi powder in closed packets kept in the shop for human consumption. The accused failed to produce the bill and source of supply of mirchi powder. P. W. 1 served Form 6 notice on the accused. He purchased three closed packets of mirchi powder of 500 gms each and after following all necessary formalities took the samples, sealed them, affixed labels and obtained the signatures of the accused, P. Ws. 2 and 3 and subscribed his signature also. Out of the three samples, he sent one sample to Public Analyst for analysis. The other two samples were deposited with the local health authority at Nizamabad. After receipt of the analyst report, he furnished a copy to the accused with the opinion of the Analyst that the mirchi powder was adulterated. Hence, the complaint against the accused for the offences under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i) and 16 (1-C) of the Act. The other two samples were deposited with the local health authority at Nizamabad. After receipt of the analyst report, he furnished a copy to the accused with the opinion of the Analyst that the mirchi powder was adulterated. Hence, the complaint against the accused for the offences under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i) and 16 (1-C) of the Act. ( 3 ) AFTER taking cognizance of the offence, the learned Magistrate secured the presence of the accused and framed the charge against the accused for the offences under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i) and 16 (1-C) of the Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. ( 4 ) THE prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined P. Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-22. After closing of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he denied the incriminating material placed by the prosecution through the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side. ( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence of the prosecution, held that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused and accordingly convicted him for the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and to pay a fine as indicated above. ( 6 ) THE accused being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court preferred Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1995 before the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the material available on record and the judgment of the trial Court, confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the mirchi powder was adulterated, but differed with the trial Court regarding the sanction accorded for prosecution on the ground that the concerned authority accorded sanction to prosecute the accused mechanically without applying its mind properly. The learned Sessions Judge further observed that since the prosecution of the accused was without proper sanction from the competent authority, the conviction of the accused cannot sustain. Accordingly, the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial Court was set aside. The learned Sessions Judge further observed that since the prosecution of the accused was without proper sanction from the competent authority, the conviction of the accused cannot sustain. Accordingly, the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial Court was set aside. ( 7 ) THE State being aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, preferred this appeal with a request to reverse the judgment of the Sessions Judge and to restore the conviction given by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent-accused contended that since there was no corroboration to the evidence of P. W. 1 regarding the procedure adopted by him for taking the samples in the manner narrated by him, it should be held that no sample was taken from the shop of the accused. He further contended that since there was no sanction order from the competent authority after applying its mind, the appellate Court rightly came to a conclusion that the prosecution cannot be maintained against the accused. Therefore, the appeal has to be dismissed as devoid of merits. ( 9 ) THE following are the points for consideration before this Court: (1) Whether the prosecution established that the samples of mirchi powder were taken from the shop of the accused after following the procedure prescribed by law? (2) Whether the sanction order obtained by the prosecution is not in accordance with law? (3) Whether there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad?point NO. 1: ( 10 ) THE Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy made a detailed discussion about the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 regarding the procedure that was followed by P. W. 1 in taking the samples of the mirchi powder from the shop of the accused. The learned Magistrate categorically observed that all the documents bear the signatures of the accused with date. It was pleaded by the accused before the trial Court that P. W. 1 somehow obtained his signatures and used them in this case without taking any samples from the shop of the accused. It was further pleaded on behalf of the accused that the accused had no kirana shop as stated by P. Ws. 1 to 3. But, the trial Court did not accept the said plea of the accused by holding that there was no substance in it. It was further pleaded on behalf of the accused that the accused had no kirana shop as stated by P. Ws. 1 to 3. But, the trial Court did not accept the said plea of the accused by holding that there was no substance in it. Though P. W. 2 - an independent witness - turned hostile, P. W. 3, the Attender of P. W. 1, corroborated with the evidence of P. W. 1 and the trial Court accepted the version of P. Ws. 1 and 3 in corroboration with the contents of exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution. The mirchi powder alleged to be seized from the shop of the accused contained 58. 73% of common salt, rice starch, rice husk and turmeric. Therefore, the Analyst opined that the mirchi powder was adulterated. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the salt, rice, starch and the husk, which were alleged to be mixed with the mirchi powder are not injurious to health. Therefore, it cannot be said that the mirchi powder was adulterated. The learned Magistrate rightly held that since the food article i. e. mirchi powder did not conform to the standard prescribed under law, irrespective of the fact that it is injurious to health or not, the accused is liable to be convicted. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3, the Analyst report and the procedure followed by P. W. 1 in taking the samples etc. , came to a conclusion that the trial Court rightly held that the Food Inspector inspected the shop of the accused on 31-12-1985, took the samples of mirchi powder from the shop of the accused and those samples were found to be adulterated as per the report of the Public Analyst and accordingly, agreed with the view expressed by the trial Court that P. W. 1 followed the procedure prescribed under the Rules in taking the samples and in obtaining the Analyst report. After carefully going through the evidence, both oral and documentary and the judgment of the Courts below, I do not find any substance in the repeated plea of the respondent-accused on this point. POINT NO. 2: ( 11 ) P. W. 1 obtained Ex. After carefully going through the evidence, both oral and documentary and the judgment of the Courts below, I do not find any substance in the repeated plea of the respondent-accused on this point. POINT NO. 2: ( 11 ) P. W. 1 obtained Ex. P-20 sanction order issued by the Director of Food (Health) Authority on 7-4-1986 and it reads as follows: (I) "after careful consideration of the case, the Food (Health) Authority, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad accords sanction to launch prosecution under the provisions of P. F. A. Act, 1954 and P. F. A. Rules 1955 against the vendor i. e. Sri N. Chandraiah, Proprietor of M/s. Chandraiah Kirana, D. No. 1-1-64/1, Vadlur Road, Kamareddy, Nizamabad district in respect of sample No. R/3182/85/f1/nzb/z1 of Mirchi powder, which is found to be adulterated vide Public Analyst Report No. 19/86, dt. 11-2-1986. The vender be prosecuted u/s. 16 (1-C) of P. F. A. Act also for contravention of Section 14-A of Act. The Food Inspector, Zone-1, Nizamabad district is directed to file complaint against the offender immediately and intimate the date of institution of prosecution, Case No. and name of the Court before which prosecution is instituted. " ( 12 ) SECTION 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 reads as follows : (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 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. " ( 13 ) ACCORDING to the above Section, the prosecution shall be instituted by a person authorised in this behalf with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government. The learned Sessions Judge while holding that there was no proper sanction order, made the following observations: (1) The Director of Institute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health Labs and Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad, did not put the date, month and year under his signature. (2) Ex. P-20 does not contain that the Director perused the entire record presented to him; (3) Whether the original of Ex. (2) Ex. P-20 does not contain that the Director perused the entire record presented to him; (3) Whether the original of Ex. P-20 was prepared by Director; (4) The order does not contain the reasons for according sanction for prosecution; (5) There is no evidence that the order was dictated to a Stenographer and transcribed by him; (6) It is only mentioned as after careful consideration of the case . (7) Whether the order was passed on 7-4-1986 by the Director himself or transcribed by the Stenographer on 7-4-1986. ( 14 ) THE following is the further observation of the learned Sessions Judge: (i)"in the present case, the sanctioning authority did not peruse the material presented to him and the Director did not give any reasons for according sanction to prosecute the accused in the light of the public interest. Hence, I hold that the order according sanction to prosecute the accused in the present case on hand is mechanically passed without applying its mind properly. " ( 15 ) SINCE the offences under the Act are treated as the offences falling under special category, the Legislature thought it proper to require that the prosecution for these offences shall be instituted only by or with the written consent of the Central or State Government or a person authorized in this behalf by the Central or State Government. Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act speaks of written consent and not sanction. The former implies mere concurrence or agreement, whereas the latter confers authority on the person in whose favour sanction is granted. Therefore, considerations applicable to the case of sanctions are not applicable to a case where written consent is required Mangaturam Agrawal v. State of Orissa, 1994 Cri LJ 1912. ( 16 ) THE Courts have drawn a distinction between the words consent and sanction and observed that they carry altogether different legal concepts. While consent involves concurrence of the sanctioning authority, sanction confers an authority Rameshwar Prasad Sharma v. State of Orissa. ( 17 ) IN Dhian Singh v. Municipal Board, Saharanpur, AIR 1970 SC 318 the Supreme Court observed that the consent or authorization can be given with respect to the case or class of cases, while sanction under Section 197, Cr. P. C. is with respect to a particular case. The sanctioning authority under Section 197, Cr. ( 17 ) IN Dhian Singh v. Municipal Board, Saharanpur, AIR 1970 SC 318 the Supreme Court observed that the consent or authorization can be given with respect to the case or class of cases, while sanction under Section 197, Cr. P. C. is with respect to a particular case. The sanctioning authority under Section 197, Cr. P. C. should apply its mind on the facts of specific case. A sanction without going into the facts of the case is bad. The order of sanction shall also reveal that the authority applied its mind, whereas under Section 20 of the Act, no question of applying one s mind to the facts of the case arises, as the authority under Section 20 can be conferred even long before the offence had taken place. ( 18 ) IN Kishan Lal v. State, (1978) 2 FAC 130 the date of collection of the sample and the date of dispatch of the sample to the Public Analyst in the sanction order were in the hand of the Food Inspector and both these dates were incorrect and yet the sanction was accorded. The Allahabad High Court, under these circumstances, held that the sanction was invalid. ( 19 ) IN Angan Lal v. State (1980) 1 Fac 190, Haldi powder was found adulterated. The Allahabad High Court observed that all the columns of the sanction order, which in a printed pro forma were filled in by the Food Inspector himself and there was no evidence to show that the relevant papers were placed before the sanctioning authority. The Court, therefore, held that the sanction was invalid. ( 20 ) IN G. P. Asthana v. Sri Krishna, 1979 All Cr R 45 (Lucknow), the Allahabad High Court observed that the complaint and the consent order were on different sheets of paper. The consent order was in cyclostyled pro forma and the entries therein had been made in ink different from the ink which the sanctioning authority appended his signature. There was nothing on record to indicate that the sanctioning authority had examined the facts of the case before according sanction. The sanction was, therefore, held by the Court as invalid. ( 21 ) IN Lakshman Singh v. State (1978) 2 Fac 228 dhania was found adulterated. The Allahabad High Court observed that the sanction was in printed pro forma. There was nothing on record to indicate that the sanctioning authority had examined the facts of the case before according sanction. The sanction was, therefore, held by the Court as invalid. ( 21 ) IN Lakshman Singh v. State (1978) 2 Fac 228 dhania was found adulterated. The Allahabad High Court observed that the sanction was in printed pro forma. There was a mention in the sanction order of the expression "sealed bottle" and also of Rules 23 and 28. There was, however, no sealed bottle in that case. The sample was taken in a packet and not in a bottle. Under those circumstances, the Court held that the sanction was invalid. ( 22 ) IN Roshan Lal v. State (1980) 2 Fac 193, Milk was found adulterated. The Allahabad High Court observed that the report of the Food Inspector did not mention as to what were the relevant papers sent along with report to the sanctioning authority. There was a column for mentioning the annexed papers and it was left blank. The Court, therefore, held that there did not exist sufficient material to indicate application of mind by the sanctioning authority and accordingly, held that sanction invalid. ( 23 ) REGARDING the aspect as to what constitutes valid sanction as required under Section 20 (1) of the Act, there are number of decisions given by various Courts. ( 24 ) IN Kesar Singh v. State, Haldi power was found adulterated. The Allahabad High Court held that where the existence of relevant papers, report of Public Analyst etc. , being in office of the sanctioning authority, prior to the according of sanction is proved, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it can be presumed that the sanction was granted after consideration of these papers and merely because the sanction was given in a cyclostyled form and while the blanks were filled in one ink and the signature of the sanctioning authority was in different ink, it could not, therefore, be said that office filled up these particulars and the sanctioning authority mechanically signed it without applying its mind to the facts of the case. ( 25 ) IN Jai Singh v. State, (1980) 1 Fac 198 : (1980 All LJ 394), Milk was found adulterated. The Allahabad High Court observed that the sanction order was on a typed pro forma. ( 25 ) IN Jai Singh v. State, (1980) 1 Fac 198 : (1980 All LJ 394), Milk was found adulterated. The Allahabad High Court observed that the sanction order was on a typed pro forma. It was, however, mentioned in that order that the papers along with the Food Inspector s report had been seen. The contention raised on behalf of applicant that the sanction was accorded mechanically was, therefore, repealed and the sanction was held valid. ( 26 ) IN Bankey v. State, (1979) 1 Fac 319 : (1979 All LJ 278), Groundnut oil was found adulterated. The Allahabad High Court negatived the challenge made by the accused to the validity of the sanction order because the order granting sanction showed that the papers submitted by the Food Inspector had been perused, besides the fact that the Medical Officer himself put down the date under his signature and had also initialled a correction. ( 27 ) IN Suresh H. Rajput v. Bharti Ben P. Sony. (1996) 7 SCC 199 , the Supreme Court observed that when there is a specific averment that the consent was given after going through the analysis report of the Public Analyst and other pertinent papers and documents and the nature of offence committed by the alleged offenders, it cannot be said that the consent was given without application of mind. ( 28 ) IN Nand Kishore v. State of Rajasthan, S. B. Criminal Revision No. 24/92 the Rajasthan High Court held that application of mind to the facts of the case by the prescribed authority was not necessary while granting written consent under Section 20 of the Act for prosecution of an offender under the Act. ( 29 ) IN State of Gujarat v. Chandraprakash K. 1999 F A J 393, the Gujarat High Court held that it is not necessary that the details must be written by the sanctioning authority. The sanctioning authority has to peruse the documents which are relevant and on being satisfied the authority had to grant the sanction. ( 30 ) ). In Suresh H. Rajput v. Bhartiben Praveen Bhai Soni, AIR 1996 SC 2883 , milk was found to be adulterated. The sanctioning authority has to peruse the documents which are relevant and on being satisfied the authority had to grant the sanction. ( 30 ) ). In Suresh H. Rajput v. Bhartiben Praveen Bhai Soni, AIR 1996 SC 2883 , milk was found to be adulterated. The Supreme Court while dealing with Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act held that when the local health authority considered the report of the public analyst and other pertinent papers and documents, including the report of the Food Inspector, before according sanction for prosecution, the grant of sanction cannot be held not valid in law. ( 31 ) THE above legal position makes it abundantly clear that when there is no indication in he sanction order/consent letter that there was application of mind, the sanction order can be held valid and when such sanction order/consent letter do not indicate the application of mind, such sanction order/consent letter can be held invalid. ( 32 ) THE sanctioning authority need not mention in his letter that he has applied his mind. But, such inference can be drawn from the contents of the order sanctioning prosecution and the details mentioned therein. Unless there is verification of the record there is no possibility for the sanctioning authority to give the details regarding the name of the accused, the nature of food article, result of the analyst report, the Act under which the accused has to be prosecuted etc. When once these details are noticed in any sanction order, it can be safely concluded that there was valid sanction order as required under Section 20 of the Act and on account of non-mentioning of a particular fact which is not the most material fact, out of many facts, the sanction order cannot be held invalid. The learned Sessions Judge while reversing the judgment of the trial Court noticed the defects referred in paragraph No. 13 supra. At this juncture I wish to refer to an observation made by the Hon ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab. Devinder Kumar, AIR 1983 SC 545 , wherein the Court observed as follows : while dealing with cases of Food Adulteration courts should keep in mind the future injury likely to be caused and should be slow to quash the prosecutions on mere technical irregularities in procedures of directory nature. Devinder Kumar, AIR 1983 SC 545 , wherein the Court observed as follows : while dealing with cases of Food Adulteration courts should keep in mind the future injury likely to be caused and should be slow to quash the prosecutions on mere technical irregularities in procedures of directory nature. ( 33 ) THE sanction consent order is a typewritten one. It contains the date, month and year of the sanction. There is no mandatory provision under the Act that the Director himself should prepare the sanction order. The Director may either prepare the sanction order by himself or dictate the same to the stenographer or give instructions to the concerned, after perusal of the record to prepare a draft on the lines required by him and after placing of the draft he may once again verify whether the instructions given by him were incorporated in the order, whether the contents of the letter are in accordance with the contents of the papers placed before him. If the contents of the sanction letter indicate anything contrary to the contents of the material placed by the Food Inspector, one can definitely say that the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind and he mechanically signed the sanction order without verification of any record. Ex. P. 20 - sanction order contains the following particulars :i. Designation of the Food Inspector and the place of functioning. ii. Name of the accused ; iii Name and particulars of the shop of the accused; iv. Nature of food article seized and tested; v. Report of the analyst; vi. Factum of adulteration; vii. Direction to prosecute the accused under the provisions of the Act; viii. A further direction to prosecute the accused for contravention of Section 14-A also; ix. Direction to file a complaint; x. Direction to report compliance. ( 34 ) NONE of these details are contrary to the contents of the record placed before him. On the other hand, all the above details are in accordance with the case of the prosecution. In the light of the incorporation of the above details pertaining to the case against the accused. ( 34 ) NONE of these details are contrary to the contents of the record placed before him. On the other hand, all the above details are in accordance with the case of the prosecution. In the light of the incorporation of the above details pertaining to the case against the accused. I do not think that the non- putting of the date under the signature by the Director himself, non-mentioning in the sanction order that he perused the record, non-adducing of the evidence that the original draft was prepared by the Director himself, non-adducing of evidence that the order was dictated by the Director to the Stenographer and it was transcribed and the non-adducing of evidence that the order was passed on 7-4-1986 by the Director himself or the order was transcribed by the Stenographer on 7-4-1986 would in no way affect or invalidate the sanction order covered by Ex. P. 20 to prosecute the accused. There is no prescribed form for the sanction order. There is no mention either in the Act or in the Rules as to what details the sanction order should contain and there is no mandatory provision either under the Act or under the Rules that the Director should mention in the order itself that he personally prepared it or dictated the order to the Stenographer etc. if the Court goes to these details which are not going to affect the validity of the sanction order, it can be said that it is a hyper-technical approach made by the Court deciding to give the benefit to the accused in undeserving cases also. ( 35 ) AFTER carefully going through Ex. P. 20 - sanction order I am thoroughly convicted that the sanctioning authority incorporated many details in it after going through the relevant papers and application of mind. The sanctioning authority while according sanction to prosecute the accused giving further direction to prosecute him under Section 16 (1-C) itself is an indication that the sanctioning authority had gone through the papers carefully and did not miss any essential details while preparing Ex. P. 20 - sanction order. ( 36 ) IN the light of the above circumstances. The sanctioning authority while according sanction to prosecute the accused giving further direction to prosecute him under Section 16 (1-C) itself is an indication that the sanctioning authority had gone through the papers carefully and did not miss any essential details while preparing Ex. P. 20 - sanction order. ( 36 ) IN the light of the above circumstances. I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge after making up his mind to give the benefit to the accused gave importance to certain unnecessary details sidelining the essential features mentioned in the sanction order and erroneous came to the conclusion that the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind. I therefore have no hesitation to reverse the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge dated 16-8-1986 and to restore the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy. ( 37 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Nizamabad in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1995 and restoring the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy in C. C. No. 204 of 1986 dated 28-4-1995 convicting the accused for the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy are confirmed. Appeal allowed.