JUDGMENT B.N. Katju, J. - This is an application filed by M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as applicant No. 1) and Shri P.K. Banerjee, factory Manager of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as applicant No. 2) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash charge under S. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. 2. It is alleged in the complaint filed by the Chief Food Inspector dated 3-10-77 that he went in the premises of applicant No. 1 at about 11 a.m. and found a tanker lorry No. DHG 282 standing there containing seasame oil (Til oil) sealed under the seal of applicant No. 1. The applicant No. 2 informed the complainant that the said tanker contained seasame oil which had been sold to the applicant No. 1 by Jagdish Prasad representative of M/s. India Oil and General Mills. The complainant asked applicant No. 2 to give him a sample of the said oil but the applicant No. 2 refused to do so and told the complainant that the sample should be taken after he had called the owner of the oil. At 4 p.m. on the same day applicant No. 2 called Jagdish Prasad who admitted that he was the representative of M/s. India Oil and General Mills and had supplied the applicant No. 1. The complainant thereafter purchased 375 grams of oil on payment of Rs. 3-20 for analysis. The oil was declared to be adulterated by the Public Analyst, U.P. by his report dated 1-7-77. 3. It is alleged in the complaint that applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and are guilty under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as the said oil was stored in the premises of applicant No. 1 and was sealed under the seal of Applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2 refused to give sample to the complainant. 4. It is said in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxmi Narain Tandon etc. 4. It is said in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxmi Narain Tandon etc. (1975 (2) FAC 441) that the expression "Store" in Section 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration means "Storing for sale" and consequently storing of an adulterated article of food for purposes other than for sale would not constitute an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act In the present case as there is no allegation in the complaint that the adulterated oil was stored in the premises of applicant No. 1 for the purpose of sale even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted no offence under 16(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is made out against the two applicants. 5. The allegation made in the complaint also do not disclose that applicant No. 2 had prevented the complainant from taking a sample of adulterated oil as it is clearly mentioned in the complaint that he had asked the complainant to wait till the owner of the said oil arrived and that he called the owner and the sample was taken by the complainant thereafter. In these circumstances, even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted offence is made out under Section 16(1)(b)of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against applicant No. 2. 6. The application is accordingly allowed and the proceedings against the applicants pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. 8177 of 1977 State v. Jagdish Prasad and others are quashed.