The facts in the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C-lie in a narrow compass but are interesting. On 25-7-1975 requisite quantity of Sugandhit Supari was purchased by the Food Inspector from Lachman Das applicant. On a report of the Public Analyst that some prohibited saccharine was found in the sample, a complaint for prosecuting Lachman Das under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was filed. On commencement of the proceedings before the Magistrate, the statement of P. W. 1, the Food Inspector, and the statement of the accused paper ant were recorded. In his statement applicant Lachman Das raised an objection that the prosecution was not maintainable in view of the Supreme Court decision in R. G. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1975 SC 189. wherein it was held that rule 22 framed under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act were mandatory. The Magistrate after hearing the counsel for the parties, upheld the objection and directed discharge of the applicant by his order dated 19-12-77 (Annexure-C to the present petition ). The Food Inspector filed another complaint before the Magistrate on 7-7-1979 about the alleged sale of adulter