JUDGMENT 1. - The State has preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment dated 02.9.1988 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the accused respondent Nanu Ram in the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, a sample of milk is alleged to have been collected on 04.10.1983 by the Food Inspector at 7.30 a.m. from the milk tank of accused being carried for sale. On examination of this sample, milk was found to be adulterated. 3. The Food Inspector filed a complaint against the accused respondent in the court. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the lower court did not find the accused respondent guilty and acquitted him of the aforesaid charge. 4. Heard learned Public Prosecutor Mr. J.P.S. Choudhary appearing for the State and Mr. Vineet Jain, Advocate appearing for the accused respondent and perused the relevant material available on record. 5. Having heard both the parties, considered the submission made at the bar and perused the impugned judgment of the lower court, I find that the judgment of acquittal of the lower court is well founded, sound and well merited. Apart the grounds of acquittal enumerated by the learned lower court, I find that the Chief Medical Health Officer, Pratapgarh issued two sanctions to prosecute the accused respondent in the court. Both the sanctions are carrying serial No. 1433 but they are bearing different dates. One is found to have been issued on 16.2.1984 and the second is found to have been issued prior to 29.12.1983. The letter Ex.P/9 reveals that the sanction to prosecute the accused respondent was issued prior to 29.12.1983 and thereafter the relevant documents were sent to the Food Inspector to file a complaint in the court of law. It speaks of a sample NO. 8/SL/83 but so far as the prosecution sanction Ex. P/8 issued on 16.2.1984 is concerned, this document does not bear any sample and it does not disclose as to which is the sample taken by the Food Inspector for which the prosecution sanction was accorded and a complaint was directed to be filed. It speaks of a sample NO. 8/SL/83 but so far as the prosecution sanction Ex. P/8 issued on 16.2.1984 is concerned, this document does not bear any sample and it does not disclose as to which is the sample taken by the Food Inspector for which the prosecution sanction was accorded and a complaint was directed to be filed. These material variations with regard to the prosecution sanction has unequivocally and undisputedly caused a serious prejudice to the accused respondent and to my firm view the accused respondent could have been acquitted on this ground alone. However, the learned lower court is not found to have committed any error in arriving at conclusion to acquit him. I agree with the grounds of acquittal as enumerated and enunciated by the lower court and in my opinion the judgment of the lower court calls for no interference.In view of the above, the state appeal preferred by the State deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.Appeal dismissed. *******