ORDER Oza. J.- l. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against an order of discharge passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Indore. 2. The petitioner filed the prosecution against the non-applicants under sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the ground that a sample of oil which was taken from non-applicant No.1 was found to be below standard according to the report of the public analyst. Learned Court below held that it is not below the standard as prescribed in schedule 1-A. 17.03 of groundnut oil but it was alleged that it was below the standard because of some administrative instructions issued by the Central Government under section 22-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate took the view that by administrative instructions under section 22-A the Central Government could not modify the standard prescribed in Schedule 1 that could only be done by amendment of the rules. He therefore held that there is no evidence of adulteration and consequently discharged the non-applicants. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that by instructions issued by the Central Government dated 29th August 1977 the Government has prescribed standard of groundnut oil wherein in addition to the requisites provided under Schedule 1-A. 17.30 some additional tests are provided and that the peroxide value should not exceed 10 and it is alleged that following this the public analyst in his report has stated that peroxide value is more than the prescribed standard. Learned counsel contended that although in Schedule. 17.03 no limit of peroxide value is provided but it has been mentioned in the definition of groundnut oil that in should be free from rancidity and by reference to the 'Chemical Analysis of Food' by David and Pearson he contended that free from rancidity will mean peroxide value to be below 10. He therefore contended that in fact what the Central Government has under these instructions done is not to prescribe a new standard but only clarified the definition which is provided under this appendix of groundnut oil. 4. In Schedule I A.17.03 it provides that:- "Groundnut oil (Moongphali-ka-tel)' means the oil expressed from clean land sound groundnuts (Arachia hypogoes). It shall be clear, free from rancidity, suspended or other foreign matter separated water, added colouring or flavoring substances or mineral oil. 4. In Schedule I A.17.03 it provides that:- "Groundnut oil (Moongphali-ka-tel)' means the oil expressed from clean land sound groundnuts (Arachia hypogoes). It shall be clear, free from rancidity, suspended or other foreign matter separated water, added colouring or flavoring substances or mineral oil. It shall conform to the following standards :- (a) Bityrorefractometer reading at 40 oC. 54.0 to 57.1 (b) Saponification value 188 to 106. (c) Iodine value 85 to 99 (d) Uusaponiqable matter Not more than 10 percent. (e) Free fatty acid as Oleic acid Not more than 3.0 per cent. (f) Bellier test (turbidity temperature acetic acid method) 39°C to 14°C. In this rule groundnut oil has also been explained and its standard has been provided. Apparently what is said in the beginning is not the definition but has been explained what the groundnut oil is and what is stated therein is free from rancidity, suspended or other foreign matter. In David Pearson's 'Chemical Analysis of Food' the author has prescribed the ways of assessment of rancidity of oils and fats. He has also explained what is rancidity and it appears from what has been stated that rancidity is because of changes during storage and has also explained how it could be assessed Under the heading 'assessment of rancidity of oils and fats' peroxide value has been mentioned and the learned counsel placed reliance on this to contend that what has been said in the rule if free from rancidity has been explained by the instructions of the Central Government in the light of the observations of this author, The passage on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel reads :- "Fresh oils usually have peroxide values well below 5 ml O.002. sodium thiosulphate perg. A rancid taste often begins to be noticeable when the peroxide value is between 10 and 20. In interpreting such figures, however, it is necessary to take into account the particular oil or fat involved." It appears that on the basis of this observations the instructions were issued and what was understood was that in order that an oil is free from rancidity its peroxide value should be below 10 as the author says that rancidity will start appearing when peroxide value is between 10 to 20 but it has been further observed by the author that it will depend upon the oils and fats and their origin. In any event therefore if a standard has to be provided as a test it has to be performed to determine as to whether the sample is free from rancidity or not, it is doubtful whether it could be done by issuing instructions under section 22-A of the Act The only course open to the Government is to amend the provisions of the rules in Schedule I i.e. A. 17.03. Section 22-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act under which the instruction appear to have been issued provides :- ‘The Central Government may give such directions as it may deem necessary to a State Government regarding the carrying into execution of all or any of the provisions of this Act, and the State Government shall comply with such directions." The provision apparently is only meant that the Central Government may issue instructions to the State Government regarding the execution of all or any of the provisions of this Act and the State Governments are therefore bound to follow those instructions but it could nor be said that these instructions can take the place of law or rules framed under the provisions of this Act and therefore cannot be binding on Courts of law. 4. Section 23 provides for framing of rules by the Central Government and section 23 (1-A) (b) confers powers on the Central Government to define the standards of quality and fixing the limits of variability permissible in respect of any article of food and the rules framed by the Central Government under this section under clause (2) further require to be placed before the House of Parliament. It is therefore clear that where the legislative power is deligated to the Central Government under section 23, the only course open, to the Central Government to modify the standards is to follow the deligated legislative functions in accordance with section 23. By administrative instructions no standard could be prescribed. Consequently in my opinion the learned Magistrate was right in discharging the non-applicants. 5. The revision petition therefore is without any substance and it is dismissed summarily without notice to the other side.