S.G. SHAH, J.

1. The prosecution agency – State has preferred this revision application challenging the judgment and order dated 01.04.2006 by the Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3 of Vadodara in Criminal Revision Application No. 64 of 2003. By such impugned judgment FTC has set aside the order dated 04.03.2003 by the JMFC, Shinor below exhibit 100 in Criminal Case No. 420 of 1988.

2. By such impugned order, the trial Court has allowed an application of the Food Inspector to recall the witness to prove the acknowledgment of statutory notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which was served upon the respondent – accused.

3. The original complaint is filed by the Food Inspector for adulteration of food stuff, which was seized from the shop of the accused and when there is positive report of public analyst regarding adulteration, the proceeding was initiated. It seems that pending trial, even after adducing evidence of several witnesses when Food Inspector has noticed that though notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been served upon the accused and that his office ha