JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---The order of discharge passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the 2nd Court in Bombay in Case No. 87/S of 1976 is sought to be challenged by the State in this petition. Originally there were 5 respondents in this petition who were also the 5 accused in the Court below. They will hereinafter be referred to as "the accused". Accused No. 1 has unfortunately expired pending the proceedings in the Court below and his name originally included in this petition has since been deleted. 2. According to the prosecution, an Inspector of the Food and Drugs Administration paid a visit to the shop of the accused on 3rd July, 1973 and purchased from the accused 600 gms. of a commodity which has been described as mitha powder. After following the procedure of dividing the sample into three parts, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst, whose report at Exh. 5 says that sample sent to him showed the presence of Dulcin and Sodium Cyclamate. In the Court below, before the charge the prosecution examined the Food Inspector and the Public Analyst. After these two witness were examined, the prosecution made an application for sending another sample to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta for analysis by him. This application was granted by the learned Magistrate and in due course the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory was received. This report shows that the total sugars contained in the sample were made up of 60.1% of Lactose and 30.0% of Saccharin. Neither Starch nor Canesugar was found in the sample. The opinion of the Director is that the mitha powder sent to him was adulterated. It may be mentioned again that the Public Analysts report showed that the sample sent to him contained 1.27% of Sodium Cyclamate and 16.4% of Saccharin and 1.0% of Dulcin. Neither Sodium Cyclamate nor Dulcin was detected by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, in the sample sent to him. After the receipt of the report of the Director, the question arose as to whether there was a case for the prosecution to go for trial. The learned trial Magistrate found that the great differences between the findings of the Public Analyst and the Director warranted an order of discharge. After the receipt of the report of the Director, the question arose as to whether there was a case for the prosecution to go for trial. The learned trial Magistrate found that the great differences between the findings of the Public Analyst and the Director warranted an order of discharge. Though the report of the Director mentioned that the sample sent to him was adulterated it was not shown in what particular sense or manner it was adulterated. The learned Magistrate also noticed that there was no standard prescribed for mitha powder. Taking this view, the learned Magistrate, by his order dated 19th October, 1976 discharged the accused. 3. This order of discharge is challenged by the State in this Revision Application supported before me by the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Gangakhedkar. Mr. Gangakhedkar contended that when the Report of the Director discloses that the sample sent to him was adulterated, the learned Magistrate was not free to pass an order of discharge. There was at any rate sufficient prima facie evidence for framing a charge and for going into the merits of the case. The learned Magistrate made an error of jurisdiction and by failing to frame a charge he has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law. The difference between the findings of the Public Analyst and those of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory should not determine the learned Magistrate from framing the charge, because in law the report of the Director supersedes the report of the Public Analyst. According to Mr. Gangakhedkar, the prosecution should have been allowed to proceed on the basis of the report of the Director. 4. I am unable to accept these submissions made on behalf of the State, because admittedly no standard has been prescribed under the Act for the mitha powder. If that is so, it is not seen how even the Director of the Central Food Laboratory could have said that the sample sent to him was adulterated. Word adulterated has been defined in section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. If that is so, it is not seen how even the Director of the Central Food Laboratory could have said that the sample sent to him was adulterated. Word adulterated has been defined in section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It was not shown to the learned trial Magistrate nor has it been shown to me here as to how on the basis of the result of the analysis by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory the sample could be said to have been adulterated in one or the other causes mentioned in section 2(i) of the Act. If it is the case of the prosecution that the sample seized from the accused is adulterated by reason of the fact that it contained certain Articles which should not contain, then it has not been shown by the prosecution neither in the Court below nor here as to why mitha power should not contain the articles. If the case of the prosecution is that the article is adulterated by reason of not conforming with the standards fixed by the Rules, it is not shown either in the Court below or before me what standards have been fixed for the commodity of mitha powder. In view of these facts, in my opinion, the learned Magistrate was left with no alternative but to discharge the accused because prima facie it was not shown by the prosecution that the article purported to have been seized from the accused was adulterated within the meaning of the term as defined in section 2(i) of the Act. 5. In the result, this petition must fail, and rule is discharged. -----