Satyeshwar Roy, J.

1. Both these applications have been heard together as both the samples of the mustard oil had been taken at the same stage of manufacturing process and both the cases are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The facts in both the cases are same. On 29th August, 1973 two samples of Mustard Oil, during the process of manufacture were taken from the Oil Mill of the petitioner and both the samples were sent to Public Analyst, bihar at Patna. The original report of the Public Analyst is not available in the record of the Court below in Criminal Miscellaneous No.403 of 1980 (R ). However it has been submitted that the Public Analyst found the samples adulterated with linseed and sisam oil. On the basis of this the competent authority for sanctioned prosecution of the petitioner. Since two samples Were taken and reports were received from the Public Analyst, two complaints were filed by the opposite party No.2 against the petitioner. After the accused appeared, on an application filed on their behalf, the samples in question were sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, (the Director), and his opinion was obtained. According to the opini