( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) FACTS in Criminal Appeal arising out of S. L. P. (Cri) No. 1755 of 1992 would be sufficient for disposal of all the appeals.

( 3 ) ON 4/06/1986, the appellant-Food Inspector inspected the premises of the respondent and purchased pasteurized toned milk in the presence of witnesses. He divided samples in three bottles and gave one of them to the respondent. He took with him two samples of which one was deposited with the Court and the other was sent to the analyst. Report of the analyst indicated that the milk was adulterated. Consequently, the local Health authority on June 7, 1986 granted sanction under Section 20 (1) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act) for laying the complaint against the respondent. In furtherance thereof, on 7/06/1986, a complaint was laid under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Act against the respondent. The Magistrate by order dated 8/02/1991, acquitted the respondent on the ground that the consent given by the local health authority was not valid in law, though he found on merits in favour of the prosecution. On appeal filed by the appellant under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court by order dated 28/10/1991 refused leave and confirmed the acquittal. Thus these appeals by special leave.

( 4 ) SECTION 20 (1) of the Act provides thus :

"20. Congnizance and trial of offences. (1) No prosecution for an offence under this Act, not being an offence under S. 14 or S. 14-A, shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of, the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government :

PROVIDED that a prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted by a purchaser or recognised consumer association referred to in Section 12, if he or it produces in Court a copy of the report of the public analyst along with the complaint".

( 5 ) A reading of Seciton 20 (1) clearly indicates that before laying the prosecution for an offence under the Act, not being an offence under Section 14 or Section 14a, the condition precedent is that written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or the person authorised in this behalf by general or special order by the appropriate Government is mandatory.

( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the local health authority has been designated with the power to accord sanction for laying the prosecution under the Act. Material portion of the consent order reads thus :

"i hereby give consent to the Food Inspector Shri S. H. Rajput to prosecute

(NAME of the accused was mentioned in each case ).

FOR contravening the provision of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as alleged in the above report of the Food Inspector.

THIS consent is given after going through the analysis report of public Analyst and other pertinent papers and documents and the nature of offence committed by the alleged offenders, as required by Section 20 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954".

( 7 ) IT would thus be clear that the sanctioning authority, viz. , local health authority had considered the report of the public Analyst and other pertinent papers and the document which contained the report of the Food Inspector and thereafter accorded sanction to prosecute the respondent.

( 8 ) THE question that emerges is whether the sanction is in accordance with laws. The learned Magistrate held that the sanction was a cyclostyled order and that the authority did not apply its mind to the facts constituting the offence and that, therefore, the grant of sanction is invalid in law. We find it difficult to give acceptance to the reasoning of the learned Magistrate. Unfortunately, the learned single Judge of the High Court did not apply his mind nor adverted to any of the material questions. He merely concurred with the view expresed by the Magistrate in a cryptic order. In fact, on merits, the learned Magistrate has held that t