( 1 ) THE only question that requires consideration is as to whether when under the Prevention of Food adulteration Act basically the offence is triable by a metropolitan Magistrate if he could commit the same to the Court of Sessions or not.

( 2 ) THE above said question arises as a result of the following facts. A complaint with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act was filed by local health authority against the petitioner. It was on the assertions that on 21st August, 1996 food inspector purchased a sample of mustard oil at M/s bansi Oil Mills, Khanna Market, New Delhi. The petitioner was stated to be present, conducting the business. A sample of 375 gms of mustard oil was taken and divided into three parts by the food inspector. One counterpart of the sample was sent to the public analyst and report was received that the sample does not conform to the standard laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It showed presence of argemone which was stated to be injurious to health. The learned Metropolitan magistrate committed the same to the court of additional Sessions Judge at New Delhi wh