( 1 ) THIS petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") for quashing the First Information Report being Crime Register No. 22 of 2001 recorded before Unjha Police Station, Unjha of Mehsana District for the offence punishable u/ss 406-420-272-273-326-28-511-120bof the I. P. Code as well as u/s 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

( 2 ) THE aforesaid F. I. R. has been lodged by the Police Sub-Inspector of Unjha Police Station stating that when he was on duty on midnight petrol duty on 21-1-2001, at that time he received an information that certain ediable goods were being carried in a truck near Tirupati Complex and an inquiry was made from the driver of the said vehicle. However, neither the driver nor the owner of the transport company could render any satisfactory explanation and ultimately samples were collected in presence of the Food Inspector. It was found that the said ediable goods was adulterated and therefore the F. I. R. was filed by the said Police Sub-Inspector on the next day i. e. 22-1-2001 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid F. I. R. the petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code for quashing and setting aside the same. It has been mainly contended that the Police Sub-Inspector has no authority to file F. I. R. before the Police for the offences in question. In fact, even looking to the averments made in the F. I. R. no offence can be said to have been made out and therefore it would be an abuse of court process to permit further investigation and submission of the charge-sheet at the end of the investigation by the Investigating Officer in the said matter. Therefore, no offence has been made even prima facie, therefore the F. I. R. may be quashed.

( 4 ) ON receipt of the above petition, notice was issued and rule was issued thereafter.

( 5 ) LEARNED A. P. P. has appeared on behalf of the State. I have heard the learned advocate for the petition and the learned A. P. P. for the State who have taken me through the F. I. R. and legal aspects of the case.

( 6 ) IT has been mainly contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Police Sub-Inspector has no authority or power to file the F. I. R. or complaint in respect of the offences punishable under the provisions of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the said Act" ). He has, drawn my attention to the provisions made in the said Act. If we go by the scheme of the said Act, it is very clear that the powers have been given to the Food Inspector for collecting the samples and for sending them to the Public Analyst and also to file complaint against the persons who are found to be guilty of the offences punishable under the said Act. In the present case, a Food Inspector appointed u/s 9 of the Act, has not filed the complaint but a F. I. R. has been filed by the Police Sub-Inspector. The Police Sub-Inspector cannot be equated with Food Inspector and therefore the Police Sub-Inspector cannot claim any right, power or authority to file the F. I. R. for the offences punishable under the said Act.

( 7 ) IT is required to be considered that the under Section 12 of the said Act, even the purchaser has also been empowered to take samples and send the same to the Public Analyst for analysis. In the present case, we find that the Police Sub-Inspector has not purchased the food samples in question and therefore he is not a purchaser. Therefore, he cannot file the complaint or the F. I. R. even in his capacity as purchaser.

( 8 ) THEN the learned advocate for the petitioners has also taken me through the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules" ). Rule 9 of the said Rules, provides for the duties of the Food Inspector and there are also provisions as to the manner in which food samples are required to be collected. In the prese