( 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 who ordered framing of the charge. By virtue of the present revision petition the petitioner asserts the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate committing the same to the Court of Sessions and also of the learned additional Sessions Judge whereby charge as such has been framed upholding the order of the learned metropolitan Magistrate.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner had urged that the offence as such if any is triable by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate and only if at the time of awarding the punishment the learned court feel that it should be more than what the learned metropolitan Magistrate could award only then same could be sent to the Court of Sessions and not otherwise. According to the learned counsel therefore committing the same to the court of Sessions at the threshold is an order passed by the learned metropolitan Magistrate which cannot be sustained.

( 4 ) TO appreciate the said controversy reference can well be made to some of the relevant provisions of prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Code of criminal Procedure. Section 16 (1) (A) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act prescribes the punishment with respect to certain offences and reads as under:-

"16 (1a) If any person whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf imports into india or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes,-

(I) any article of food which is adulterated within the meaning of any of the sub-clauses (e) to (f) (both inclusive) of clause (ia) of section 2; or (ii) any adulterant which is injurious to health,he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to six years and with tine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees: provided that if such article of food or adulterant, when consumed by any person is likely to cause his death or is likely to cause such harm on his body as would amount to grievous hurt within the meaning of Section 320 of the Indian Penal code, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to term of life and with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees.

( 5 ) IT clearly reveals that if a food article when consumed is likely to cause death or harm to the body then the punishment shall not be less than three years but can extend to life besides fine. Section 20 of the same Act provides that no prosecution under that acfc not being the offence under Section 15 or 14a shall be instituted except that the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or a person duly authorised by the centre or the State government. Sub-section (2) to Section