The mandatory requirements of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, must be strictly complied with in the investigation and prosecution of offenses under the Act. Failure to comply with these requirements will vitiate the proceedings.

G. B. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under S. 482 of the Cri. P. C. for quashing of the charges framed against the petitioners under Ss. 485, 486 and 487 of the I. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the "code") and S. 16 (1) (a) (i) read with S. 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ).

( 2 ) WHEN this matter was heard by one of us, namely Hon'ble Justice B. K. Behera, several important questions having arisen for consideration and no direct decision either of the Supreme Court or of this Court being there on the points, it was directed that the case be placed before a larger Bench for disposal and that is how the matter has come before the Division Bench.

( 3 ) ON 5-8-1979, the godown premises of the petitioners was raided by Mangalabal Police people and several articles were seized. The seized articles were mustard oil. Vanaspati, coconut oil of different brands. After seizure, the Food Inspector of Cuttack Municipality drew two samples from mustard oil and palmoline oil and sent the same to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the samples which had been sent for analysis were found to be in conformity with the prescribed standards Subsequently, on 12-10-1979, one Agmark Inspector was called by the Investigation Officer and samples of mustard oil having been drawn were analysed in the Agmark. Laboratory and according to the prosecution case, it was found to be adulterated Thereafter the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet under Ss. 417, 270, 273, 482 485, 486 and 487 of the Code and S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act as well as Ss. 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. When the matter was considered before the Court for framing of charges the prosecution did not press for framing of charges under Ss. 417 and 270 of the Code as well as Ss. 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and ultimately charges were framed under Ss. 485, 486 and 487 of the Code as well as S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. The accused persons have prayed for quashing of the aforesaid charges.

( 4 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge as well as when the case was heard before the Division Bench the learned Public Prosecutor concedes that the charge under S. 486 of the Code cannot be sustained in view of the bar provided under S. 468 of the Cri. P. C. So far as the charges under Ss. 485 and 487 of the Code are concerned, though Mr. Pasayat appearing for the petitioners raises the contention that the materials are insufficient for framing the charges, yet we are not inclined to agree with the submission, since at this stage it cannot be said that there is no material whatsoever in support of those charges. It is too well settled that the charges framed by a Magistrate can be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction only when the High Court comes to the conclusion that the entire materials taken on their face value would not constitute the offence in question. Applying the said test to the facts and circumstances of the case together with the materials on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the charges framed under Ss. 485 and 487 of the Penal Code. The said charges must, therefore, remain and would be tried by the Magistrate.

( 5 ) THE only other question which remains for our consideration is the charge framed under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. Mr. Pasayat for the petitioners raises several legal submissions in this regard namely :- (I) The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act being a special statute and the procedure for investigation as well as the procedure to be adopted thereafter having been enumerated in the said Act, the general law provided under the provisions of the Cri. P. C. will not apply and, therefore, the investigation as well as the prosecution must be held to be bad in law. (ii) The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act prescribes that the analysis can be done either to the state Laboratory or the Central Laborator