1. - This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the accused petitioner challenging the order dated 4th April, 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar Lake, whereby he rejected the legal objections raised by the petitioner in the criminal case (No.210/99) pending in that court for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13th June, 1997, the Food Inspector had inspected the firm Navneet Iodized Salt, Sambhar Lake and purchased some salt as sample for the purpose of investigation in regard to adulteration. After completion of the procedure, in respect of taking sample, sealing, sending to the Analyst, etc. etc., the necessary sanction was granted by the Chief Medical Health Officer, Jaipur in favour of the Food Inspector for lodging of the criminal case.

3. Consequently, a complaint was filed in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur by the Food Inspector on 15th July, 1998. The learned trial court took cognizance for the offence under Section 7(3) of the Food Adulteration Act and Rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner was summoned by bailable warrant.

4. Subsequently, the case was transferred, on 26th June, 1999 to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and ACJM, Sambhar Lake. On 15th July, 1998 when Shri B.S. Hada, Food Inspector had filed the complaint, he also filed an application for exemption his presence in the ensuing proceedings. However, the learned trial court rejected the application for exempting the presence of the Food Inspector on that every day i.e. 15th July, 1998 (Annex.3). The complainant had not appeared before the learned trial court since the filing of the complaint, despite of the fact that this application for exemption was already rejected by the learned trial court. In such view, the petitioner had, on 3rd March, 2000, raised an objection that the complainant is not appearing before the learned trial court and the complaint deserves to be rejected on account of his non-appearance. The learned trial court heard the parties on the said same, and by his impugned order dated 4th April, 2000 rejected the same raised by the petitioner (Annex.4).

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily raised the objection, against the order impugned, on the ground that the complainant had not appeared since the filing of the complaint and it was the learned public prosecutor who had been conducting the case on his behalf. Further he has submitted that under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, it is only the person authorised who can institute a complaint and conduct the same. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the judgment of Rampal v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1999 Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 567 .

6. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor has submitted that the order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity and it is an order passed in accordance with relevant law. He has also submitted that so far as the provisions of Section 20 of the Act is concerned, it relates only to institution of the complaint by an authorised person. According to him after a complaint has been filed by a person authorized, then the case can be conducted on his behalf by the public prosecutor of that court.

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties.

8. The question about institution of a complaint by an authorised person and conducting of the trial in the offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act had come before the High Court in number of cases. In the case of Dhaliya v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Revision No.159 of 1978 decided on 29th November, 1982 it had been held that the conduct of the trial in offence under