JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 25.5.1988 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh whereby he has acquitted the respondent for commission of offence u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The impugned order has been challenged by the prosecution on the ground that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its legal perspective. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned trial Court while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution has not agreed with the prosecution version that the oil taken as sample was put in stirred and dry lunch box and that the sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority himself, i.e. Chief Medical and Health Officer, which does not suffer from any lacunae. 4. I have perused the evidence; report of the Analyst and the sanction granted by the Sanctioning Authority. I need not to appreciate the other evidence of the prosecution as this appeal can be decided appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution with regard to the sanction for prosecution. Perusal of the statement of prosecution witness no. 1 Mr. Kunj Bihari, who has been cited as Food Inspector and was a witness also to prove the sanction, has stated before the trial Court that he has received sanction for prosecution. The sanction for prosecution placed on record has not been proved. There are two ways to prove the sanction for prosecution. It may either be proved by the person who has signed it and in that situation, he should come in the witness box and identify & admit the documents or by a person who acknowledges the signatures of the sanctioning authority. This has not been done by the prosecution in the present case. Therefore, this document being not proved, cannot be read against the accused. 5. Thus, the case suffers for non-sanction of the prosecution. The trial court has rightly recorded the finding of acquittal by not taking the evidentiary value of this document to be read as against the accused. The appeal accordingly, fails and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******