JUDGMENT P. N. Bakshi, J. - This is an application under section 482, Cr. P.C. by Bishan Dass who is being prosecution for an offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The facts of the case as they emerge from the complaint and the statement of the Food Inspector filed with this petition are that on 2311976 the Food Inspector of the Nagar Palika was on his usual round when he came to the shop of the petitioner. He found the petitioner selling mustard oil which he suspected was adulterated. He purchased 375 Gramms mustard oil, divided it into three phials, gave one phial to the applicant and sent one other for examination to the Public Analyst. The third phial was retained by him. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample to him contains a small proportion of Til oil. On the basis of this material, the applicant is being prosecuted for the offence mentioned above. The statement of the Food Inspector was recorded and a charge has been framed against the applicant by the 1st Class Magistrate Mainpuri on 831975. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. 3. I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the affidavit on the record. The respondent's counsel has submitted that since a revision has been filed before the Sessions Judge against the framing of the charge which has been rejected, this court should not exercise its power under section 482, Cr. P. C. It is also mentioned in the counter affidavit that the certified copy of the order passed by the revisional court would be produced at the time of the hearing of this petition. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has not admitted that any such revision was filed. The certified copy of the alleged order of the Sessions Judge has not been filed before me. In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept or to reject the contention that the revision has in fact been filed before the Sessions Judge. In any case, powers under section 482, Cr. P.C. are very wide and even if we assume that the revision has been filed, yet in the interest of justice, this court can interfere at any stage of the proceedings. I therefore, do not find any merit in this preliminary objection raised on behalf of the opposite parties. In any case, powers under section 482, Cr. P.C. are very wide and even if we assume that the revision has been filed, yet in the interest of justice, this court can interfere at any stage of the proceedings. I therefore, do not find any merit in this preliminary objection raised on behalf of the opposite parties. 4. The applicant's counsel has submitted that in view of section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, no offence has been committed by him. On the other hand the respondent's counsel submits that the case is covered by section 2 (a) of the said Act. I have carefully considered the respective submissions made by both the parties. Section 2 (a) of the Act runs as follows : "If the article sold by vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be : then such article of food is deemed to be adulterated." 5. The first part of this proviso indicates that the article sold should not be of the nature substance or quality demanded and should also be prejudicial to the purchaser. On a perusal of the report of the Public Analyst, I do not find any remark given therein that the small mixture of Til oil with mustard oil was injurious to the health of the purchaser. Neither is there a word on this aspect of the matter in the statement of the Food Inspector recorded before the framing of the charge. 6. The second part of clause 2 (a) deals with the case where the nature, substance or quality of an article sold is not the same which it purports to be or which is represented by the seller to the purchaser. It is not the case for the prosecution that the applicant sold Til oil to the Food Inspector representing it to be mustard oil or that pure mustard oil was demanded by the Food Inspector and the shop keeper on a misrepresentation sold Til oil to him. As such in my view, the provisions of section 2 (a) of the Food Adulteration Act was not attracted in the circumstances of the case. As such in my view, the provisions of section 2 (a) of the Food Adulteration Act was not attracted in the circumstances of the case. Section 2 (c) of the Act runs as follows : "If any inferior or cheaper substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof." Then such an article of food is to be deemed adulterated. 7. Counsel for the petitioners has averred in paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed along with this application that mustard oil is cheaper than Til oil. He has also averred that whereas mustard oil is sold at Rs. 5.50 per kg. Til oil is sold at Rs. 9.50 per kg. in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the contesting respondent it is admitted in paragraph 7 that Til oil is costilier than mustard oil. In view of this admitted position, there can be no doubt that the substance namely Til oil which has been found in a very small quantity in the mustard oil sold to the petitioner was neither cheaper nor inferior than mustard oil. Section 2 (c) further requires that the mixture should affect injuriously the nature of substance or quality of the article sold. Again it may be pointed out that the report of the Public Analyst does not indicate that the small mixture which he found and of which he could not give the definite proportion was in any manner injurious to human consumption. In these circumstances, the applicant cannot even be charged with an offence under section 2 (c) of the Act, for the facts on the record clearly indicate that the mixture of Til oil with mustard oil was a costly mixture and does not affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof. In my view, therefore, this is a fit case in which I should interfere under section 482, Cr. P.C. Neither the report of the Public Analyst nor the statement of Food Inspector makes out any prima fade case against the applicant. The charge therefore, has been erroneously and illegally framed by the Magistrate. 8. In the result, therefore, this c petition succeeds. The charge framed against the petitioner on 831975 and the entire proceedings in case No. A12 of 1975 Municipal Board v. Bishan Dass, pending before the Munsif Magistrate are hereby quashed.