Proceedings in a criminal case in which the allegation is regarding the commission of the offences under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act are sought to be quashed by one of the accused mainly on two grounds; one, non-compliance of the provision in Section 13(2) of the Act and two, not obtaining proper sanction for prosecution as envisaged in Section 20 of the Act before filing complaint in Court. Petitioner is the third accused in the case and the allegation against him and the other two accused is that they committed the offences under Section 2(1a) (m) read with Section 7(i)(v) and Appendix B.A.25.02.01 punishable under Section 16(1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. On 19-11-1996 at 11.15 a.m. the Food Inspector, Vellinizhy Grama Panchayat (Mannarkkad Circle), after observing necessary Prescribed formalities, inspected the grocery shop in 7/491 where the first accused was doing business. According to the Food Inspector, the first accused told him that he was the licensee and salesman of the shop. On giving Form VI notice to him the Food inspector obtained the counterfoil singed by him. On paying Rs.100/- and on obtaining a cash receipt the Food Inspector purchased form the first accused one packet of mixed fruit chewing gum (chiclets) exhibited in the shop of the first accused for sale. Thereafter, he divided the chiclets purchased into three equal parts and on properly packing, sealing and labeling the same, one sample along with Form VII Memorandum was sent to the Public Analyst, Regional Analytical Laboratory, Kozhikode for analysis. Remaining two parts of the sample were sent to the local health authority, Vellinizhy Panchayat along with copies of Form VII Memorandum and specimen impressions of the seal used to seal the sample. The Public Analyst in Form III Report dated 24-12-1996 gave the opinion that the mixed fruit chewing gum does not conform to the standard prescribed for chewing gum under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and hence adulterated. According to the Food Inspector, the second accused is the stockist and distributor for the third accused. The Food Inspector, who is the first respondent in this petition, filed Annexure-I complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ottapalam alleging commission of offences under the Act. According to the first respondent, the third accused, who is the petitioner, is the depot manager from whom the second accused obtained the adulterated chiclets. There is also statement in the complaint that the District Food Inspector, Palakkad informed the first respondent that there was no nomination under the Act for the Company.

3. First respondent gave the complaint to the Magistrate on 31st January, 1998 and the Magistrate returned the same to the Food Inspector with a direction to resubmit the same on or before 28th February, 1998. The complaint was returned by the Magistrate by sending the same by registered post with acknowledgment due. The Magistrate, while returning the complaint, said that Document No.9 in the List of Documents was not produced and directed the complainant to produce the property separately and produce a copy of nomination regarding Accused Nos. 2 and 3. On 16th February, 1998 the complaint was resubmitted in the Court of the Magistrate clarifying that Accused No.2 is the distributor for Accused No.3, the Depot Manager of the Company from whom Accused No.2 and Accused No.1 got the adulterated chiclets. The complainant also stated that the Company had not made any nomination before the District Food Inspector, Palakkad. The Magistrate again return the complaint to the Food Inspector and on 26th February, 1998 the complaint was resubmitted with necessary corrections. At that time the complainant clarified that the third accused was not the Manager or Director of the Company but was only a stockist and distributor of food items of the Company.

4. T