JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. (Oral) : - This petition has been preferred by the State for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 17.11.2004 passed by the President Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur (hereinafter referred to as the "President Officer") whereby the judgment dated 17.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur convicting and sentencing the respondent under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") has been set aside. 2. The material facts for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that on 4.2.1998 S.C. Sharma, Food Inspector purchased sample of cows milk from the shop of the respondent at Nadaun. On analysis the sample was found adulterated. Hence the said Food Inspector launched prosecution against the respondent. 3. The trial Court convicted the respondent and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months against the said conviction and sentence which was allowed by the President Officer. Hence this petition by the State. 4. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the petitioner-State and have also perused the material placed on the record. 5. The learned President Officer set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent on the ground that the Food Inspector had launched the prosecution of the respondent without obtaining the requisite written consent of the concerned authority as required under Section 20(1) of the Act 6. It is not in dispute that a complaint was lodged by the Food Inspector against the respondent under Section 16(1 )(a)(i) of the Act without getting the requisite written consent from the authorised authority as required under Section 20(1) of the Act. Needless to say that the object of the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Act is to prevent launching of frivolous and vexatious prosecution against the traders. In view of such an object, getting of requisite consent for prosecution is not an idle formality but is a mandatory requirement of law. Since the Food Inspector launched the prosecution against the respondent without getting the written consent, therefore, the prosecution of the respondent was vitiated and has been rightly held so by the appellate Court below. 7. In view of the above, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of leave as prayed for. Hence this petition is dismissed.