P.N.BAKSHI,J. - (1.) THIS is an appli­cation under section 482, Cr. P.C. by Bishan Dass who is being prosecution for an offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) THE facts of the case as they emerge from the complaint and the statement of the Food Inspector filed with this petition are that on 23-1-1976 the Food Inspector of the Nagar Palika was on his usual round when he came to the shop of the petitioner. He found the petitioner selling mustard oil which he suspected was adulterated. He purchased 375 Gramms mustard oil, divided it into three phials, gave one phial to the applicant and sent one other for examination to the Public Analyst. The third phial was retained by him. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample to him contains a small proportion of Til oil. On the basis of this material, the applicant is being prosecuted for the offence mentioned above. The state­ment of the Food Inspector was recorded and a charge has been framed against the applicant by the 1st Class Magistrate Mainpuri on 8-3-1975. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the affi­davit on the record. The respondent's counsel has submitted that since a revi­sion has been filed before the Sessions Judge against the framing of the charge which has been rejected, this court should not exercise its power under section 482, Cr. P. C. It is also men­tioned in the counter affidavit that the certified copy of the order passed by the revisional court would be produced at the time of the hearing of this peti­tion. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has not admitted that any such revision was filed. The certified copy of the alleged order of the Sessions Judge has not been filed before me. In these circumstances, it is not pos­sible to accept or to reject the conten­tion that the revision has in fact been filed before the Sessions Judge. In any case, powers under section 482, Cr. P.C. are very wide and even if we assume that the revision has been filed, yet in the interest of justice, this court can interfere at any stage of the proceed­ings. I therefore, do not find any merit in this preliminary objection raised on behalf of the opposite parties.
(3.) THE applicant's counsel has submitted that in view of section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, no offence has been committed by him. On the other hand the respon­dent's counsel submits that the case is covered by section 2 (a) of the said Act. I have carefully considered the respec­tive submissions made by both the parties. Section 2 (a) of the Act runs as follows :- "If the article sold by vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be : then such article of food is deemed to be adulterated." ;