JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision petition under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 10.01.1995 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur, Camp Didwana in Criminal Appeal No. 28/1994 upholding the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the learned trial court vide order dated 28.5.1994 for the offence under Section 16/50 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1955 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act') in Criminal Case No. 673/1992. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thee sanction of the prosecution by the competent authority vide Exhibit P/2 was without application of mind as the same does not contain any reason, much-less cogent reasons for sanctioning prosecution of the petitioner under the provisions of the said Act. He also submitted that the inspector concerned without appropriate authority also visited the shop of the petition at 06.30 AM on 31.05.1986 and found that the petitioner was dealing with 'Kirana' goods, and was also running a flour mill in the said premises and a complaint was filed against him under Section 16/50 of the said Act merely because the petitioner did not hold a valid licence under the provisions of the said Act. He submitted that both the courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner and imposing sentence of one year's a rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, which on appeal was reduced to there months' rigorous imprisonment and fine was reduced to Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment. 4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of State v. Sits Ram, reported in 2005(2) CJ (Raj) Criminal 586 and the decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s Sham Sunder and Brothers v. State of H.P. & Anr., reported in 1993 Cri. L.J. 35 . 5. The Coordinate Bench in the case of State v. Sita Ram (supra) in para 9 has held as under : "9. L.J. 35 . 5. The Coordinate Bench in the case of State v. Sita Ram (supra) in para 9 has held as under : "9. It is further to be seen that the sanctioning authority while is issuing sanction under Section 20 has not applied its mind because from Ex.P/6, the proforma of sanction, it is apparent that only the blank places have been filled up This demonstrates total non-application of mind on the part of sanctioning authority. The sanctioning authority is required to examine the matter thoroughly and there must be satisfaction of the authority after perusal of the material and, it should be clearly revealed under what provisions of law the offence is alleged to have been committed and there must be further satisfaction of the sanctioning authority that it was in the public interest to accord sanction." 6. The Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s Sham Sunder and Brothers (supra) in para 7 and 8 has held as under : "'7. ....It is a blank form, columns of which have been filled by some-one. The Sanctioning Authority has only appended the signatures at the end of it. It cannot be said that the Sanctioniong Authority has applied its mind before according the sanction. It has been held in many decisions that sanction is not an idle formality. It is an important function to be discharged seriously and cautiously by the Sanctioning Authority. It has to apply its mind to the facts and the circumstances of each case before it comes ti the conclusion that it is in public interest to prosecute the accused." 8. ......With respect to the learned judges, I do not subscribe to the view taken in this case. It cannot be assumed that the Sanctioning Authority looked the documents sent to it by the Food Inspector. The sanction order must disclose the applications of mind by the Sanctioning Authority. The application of mind can be seen whether the Sanctioning Authority took care to go to the documents submitted to it and how it was influenced to take the decision to prosecute the accused. Further it has also to decide how the prosecution of the accused is necessary in public interest . The application of mind can be seen whether the Sanctioning Authority took care to go to the documents submitted to it and how it was influenced to take the decision to prosecute the accused. Further it has also to decide how the prosecution of the accused is necessary in public interest . these facts can also be proved in case the Sanctioning Authority comes in the witness box to prove it, otherwise it cannot be presumed that it had applied its mind before according to sanction." 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition and supported the impugned orders and conviction of the petitioner. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through impugned orders, this Court is of the view that despite finding that two 'Motbir(s)', in whose presence the inspection memo was prepared, have turned hostile and the sanction order Ex. P/2 does not contain any reason, the courts below have convicted the petitioner of the alleged offence of not holding the valid license under the provisions of the said Act. The said conviction cannot be sustained because the Sanctioning Authority does not appear to have applied its mind to the relevant facts before sanctioning prosecution against the petitioner, nor the fact that the inspection was carried out in the wee hours of 31.05.1986 without appropriate authority has also weighed with the courts below. The said prosecution appears to be made for extraneous reasons and without proper application appears to be made for extraneous reasons and without proper application of mind. Consequently, this revision petition deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders of the learned courts below dated 10.01.1995 and 28.05.1994 are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the said offence.Revision Allowed. *******