ORDER :

1. These Criminal Misc. Petitions have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

In S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3765/2016:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 (Annex.1) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the order dated 26.05.2016 (Annex.2) passed by the learned trial Court may kindly be upheld and the petitioner may kindly be discharged.”

In S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1679/2017:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 (Annex.1) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the order dated 26.05.2016 (Annex.2) passed by the learned trial Court may kindly be upheld and the petitioner may kindly be discharged.”

2. The genesis of both the petitions lies in a common controversy, as the petitions have been preferred against the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Nohar, whereby while quashing and setting aside the order dated 26.05.2016 passed by the learned trial court, of discharging the petitioners for the offences under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1954’), the learned trial court was directed to frame charge against the petitioners for the said offence, and to commence the necessary trial thereafter.

3. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the present criminal proceeding against the petitioners was launched on the basis of a private complaint, at Annex. 3, lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2 herein, before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar. And that, it was alleged therein that the complainant, while checking the shop of petitioner-Hansraj, collected three samples of ‘Ujala’ Ghee in the presence of motbirs, and sent the same for the necessary analysis and examination, and that thereafter, it was found out that it was a case of mis-branding (false labelling).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it was only a case of incorrect labelling, wherein the words ‘best before’ was written in small letters, instead of in capital letters, and that the samples, upon being tested, did not reveal any kind of adulteration.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the learned trial court, rightly took the said relevant aspect into consideration and passed a detailed and speaking order, whereby the petitioners were discharged of all the charges levelled against them.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Respondent No. 1 i.e. the State preferred a revision petition and that the learned revisional Court erred in quashing and setting the order of discharge passed by the learned trial court and in directing the learned trial court to frame charge against the petitioners for the offences under the Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Patna rendered in M.D. Anand Aqua Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (Cri. Misc. Petition 14365/2009, decided on 26.02.2010) and Pramod Kumar Kediya Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (Cri. Misc. Petition 36007/2011, decided on 15.03.2012).

Relevant portions of the same read as follows:-

In M.D. Anand Aqua (supra) :-

“The petitioner has been made accused in this case on the ground that he was selling Anand Aqua bottled drinking water which was allegedly misbranded, as such cognizance has been taken for the offences under section 16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 16 (1) of the Act is the penal section with respect to manufacture, sale, store or distribution of any article of food.

It is alleged that the bottled drinking water was misbranded as it did not mention "BEST BEFORE" in capital let