Jurisdiction of Magistrate of Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Crl.M.P. No. 2434 of 1982 is an application made under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.147 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the 7th Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Crl. M.P. No. 2435 of 1982 is an application for stay pending disposal of the former application.

2. The facts which emerge for the complaint, the only record made available to this Court, besides the copy of the Analyst report, can be briefly noticed, Sri Manjoor Ahmed Khan, Food Inspector, inspected the premises of one Mangalmal on 30th March, 1981, and purchased 150,0 grams of ‘Kalpa Vanaspathi’ from a sealed tin in the presence of mediators. In the said shop, he found a total of 11 tins of Kalpa Vanaspathi available for sale for human consumption. There was a printed label on the sealed tin of Kalpa Vanaspathi which has been detached from the sealed tin under due attestation. He divided the 1500 grams of Kalpa Vanaspathi into three equal parts and placed each part into a clear dry and empty bottle. The firm of Mangalmal produced before the Food Inspector cash bill No. 976 dated 28th March, 1981, showing that the said 11 tins of kapa vanaspathi were supplied by another firm M/s. S.R. Traders, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. M/s. S.R. Traders were questioned regarding the sale and they, in their turn, furnished information by way of the original invoice dated 27th March, 1981, lorry way bill dated 27th March, 1981, and lorry supply office receipt dated 27th March, 1981, that they received the stocks of Kalpa Vanaspathi from the Vijayawada sales depot of M/s. Oswal Oils & Vanaspathi Limited and that the spies depot made the supply in the same condition as was supplied to it by the 2nd petitioner who is the manufacturer of vanaspathi at Madras. M/s. Mangalmal also communicated to the Food Inspector that they do not sell loose vanaspathi but they sell vanaspathi in sealed tins only and that the sample earlier taken by the Food Inspector was from one such sealed tin. One of the samples sent to the Public Analyst was analysed by the Public Analyst, whose report is that the sample contains excessive percentage of free fatty acid and it is, therefore, adulterated. The petitioners did not make available the copies of the correspondence which were referred to in the complaint petition as enclosed thereto. In the complaint petition, the 1st petitioner was described as the nominee and manager of the 2nd petitioner. The analysts report shows that the sample was received by him on 31st March, 1981, and the report of the Analyst bears the date 14th May, 1981. It does not indicated the date on which the sample was analysed by the Public Analyst. This complaint was taken on file as C.C.No. 147 of 1981 on the file of the 7th Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

3. As can be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition, there is no dispute that the 1st petitioner is the manager of the 2nd petitioner company. The petitioners have set out various grounds in support of their request to quash the proceedings. Earlier, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.605 of 1982 for the same purpose. That was, however, dismissed on the 16th June, 1982, on the ground that the various grounds set out in the application are deforces that may be available to the petitioners and do not warrant the quashing of the proceedings. It is on exactly the same grounds the petitioners have again applied for quashing of the proceedings. It is not, however, disputed that the petitioners could file successive applications for quashing the proceedings. This is made clear by a decision of the Supreme Court in Superintendent and Legal Remembrancer, West Bengal v. Mohan Singh1 It has, therefore, become necessary to advert to the various submissions made in support of the petition by Mr. Sawhney, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Some of these submissions appear, ex facie, on the complaint petition itself. In an application filed under section 482,