D.K. Sinha, J.

1. The petitioner M.N. Choudhary has preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the cognizance order dated 10.12.1999 passed by the C.J.M., Ranchi in case No. C(iv) 20/99 as well as the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the said case presently pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Ranchi.

2. The O.P.No. 2 as well as 3 pursuant to the notice received filed the counter-affidavit at flag A and rejoinder thereof at flag B.

3. The brief fact of the case is that O.P.No. 2 had collected the sample of iodized salt from the premises of Hotel, Ranchi Ashok on 31.8.1999 to be analyzed by the analyst Ranchi. However, a prosecution report was submitted by the Civil surgeon-cum-C.M.O., O.P.No. 3 in the Court of C.J.M., Ranchi on 1.12.99 with the allegation that the salt collected from the premises of Hotel Ranchi Ashok was adulterated and it did not conform to the specification laid down under Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules as per report of the public analyst Bihar, Patna vide report No. 2261 dated 8.10.1999 which attracted the offence under Section 16(1)(a) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. On the basis of the written report submitted by the O.P.No. 3 the cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner M.N. Choudhary, General Manager of Hotel, Ranchi Ashok as well as another Ashok Kumar Singh, Store Incharge of the said Hotel under the aforesaid section.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sample in question purported to have been taken by the O.P.No. 2 from the store of the Hotel was not meant for sale rather the same was being used as an ingredient for preparation of food. Both the samples were taken on 31.8.99 and the case was registered on 1.12.99 but no report of the analyst was made over to the petitioner as per requirement of law under Section 13(2) of the

5. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 9(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The petitioner was the General Manager of the Hotel and not a person Incharge of the affairs of the store or the kitchen of the Hotel.

6. Learned Counsel further submitted that the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act and Rule 9(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rule having not been followed in the present case either by notice or by the registered cover or by sending a letter to the petitioner within 10 days of the receipt of such report of the analyst as to whether the petitioner was intended to get it analyzed by the Central Laboratory with the permission of Court.

7. Reliance has been placed upon the decision reported in 1994(1) East. Cr. C.196. In L.M. Batra v. State of Bihar the Honble Patna High Court laid down that under the amended Section of the Food Adulteration Act, a valuable right has been given to the accused by giving a copy of the report of the public analyst and also delivering him that if he so desired may get the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory by making an application to the Court and non-application of this provision vitiates the entire proceedings.

8. Similarly sanctioning authority i.e. Civil Surgeon-cum-C.M.O. without applying his judicial mind simply put the sentence," Prosecution sanctioned after perusal of the report it is not mentioned therein that upon being satisfied with the allegation and the report of the analyst he had accorded sanction for launching prosecution against the petitioner and another and therefore, the said sanction for the prosecution is improper.

9. Finally it has been submitted that the petitioner being the Managing Director of Hotel Ranchi Ashok was not the person Incharge of the affairs of the Hotel and he was in no manner responsible as the Managing Director of the keeping of the stores of the hotel and much prior to the alleged occurrence, the petitioner vide Annexure-4 had sent a letter to the Civil Suregeon, Ranchi Sadar Hospital Ranchi by nominating the Store keeper of Hotel Ranchi Ashok a