JUDGMENT 1. - This matter is listed today for disposal in the spirit of Lok Adalat. 2. This appeal has been filed by the State against the order dated 21.2.1994 whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh Junction has acquitted the accused respondents for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1954'). 3. Vide judgment dated 21.2.1994 passed in Criminal Case No.128/1988, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh Junction has acquitted the accused-respondents for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 while holding that before granting prosecution sanction, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sri Ganganagar has not applied its mind and has granted prosecution sanction in mechanical manner. The learned trial court has observed that there is no evidence available on record to suggest that before granting the prosecution section, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Shri Murli Manohar Mathur has applied its mind while taking into consideration the exhibits P/1 to P/9, P/11 and P/13. The learned trial court has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in Babu Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1991 page 298 and has held that when the prosecution sanction has been granted in mechanical manner, the same vitiates the whole proceedings. 4. The learned counsel for the State has argued that the prosecution has proved before the trial court that the respondents have committed offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954, however, the learned trial court, without taking into consideration the evidence available on record, has illegally acquitted the respondents while holding that before granting prosecution sanction, the Chief Medical and health Officer, Sri Ganganagar has not applied its mind. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court whereby the respondents have acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 as the prosecution has failed to prove the said charges against the accused-respondents. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondent mainly on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that before granting the prosecution sanction, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sriganganagar has applied its mind. From the perusal of exhibit P/14, it is clear that the same is printed form wherein the names of the parties and some other entries are handwritten. From Exhibit P/14, it is not born out that before passing the said order, the learned Chief Medical and Health Officer has taken into consideration the documents submitted before him by the Food Inspector and has come to the definite conclusion in respect of the nature of the offence committed by the accused respondents. 8. It is settled proposition of law that before granting prosecution sanction, the sanctioning authority has to apply its mind to the records placed before it and has to also find out the nature of offence committed by the accused. While granting the prosecution sanction, the sanctioning authority is required to mention one or two of various types of adulteration as described in Section 2 of the Act of 1954. As per the provisions of law, the sanction order should not be vague and omnibus and sanctioning authority is required to point out the relevant particulars on the basis of which the prosecution was based. 9. After perusing the exhibit P/14, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in holding that the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sri Ganganagar has failed to apply its mind while granting prosecution sanction against the accused-respondents. Hence, no case for interference is made out.The criminal appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******