JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. by the Administrator, Municipal Council, Sikar, is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar dated June 15, 1978, whereby the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, dated September 14, 1976 was upheld. 2. The Health Officer, Municipal Council, Sikar filed a complaint against the non-petitioner Madan Lal for an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The allegation against the non petitioner was that the Food Inspector O. P. Sharma purchased 600 grams of`BESAN' from the accused on October 11, 1974. A sample of the `BESAN' was sent to the Public Analyst, Sikar, who vide his report dated October 26, 1974, certified that the sample of `BESAN' sent to him was adulterated. 3. During the pendency of case an objection was raised from the side of the accused in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate that in view of the Notification dated March 11, 1974, issued under section 20 of the Act, the complaint could not have been lodged without the previous sanction of the Collector or Distt. Magistrate. 4. As no sanction was obtained from the aforesaid authorities as such the complaint was not maintainable. The objection prevailed with the Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as with the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar and in the result the accused was discharged. 5. At the out set it may be mentioned that in the facts stated in the petition filed in this court under section 482, Cr. P. C. it appears that the facts about some adulteration in milk have been narrated. The present case has no concerned about the adulteration in the milk but relates to adulteration in `BESAN'. Learned counsel for the non petitioners thus submitted as a sort of preliminary objection that this petition may be dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the mistake might have occurred because in both the orders of the lower courts no facts were mentioned and. the case was decided merely on a legal ground. It is also contended that now the record of the courts below is available and this Hon'ble Court can decide the matter on the basis of the record available before it. 6. the case was decided merely on a legal ground. It is also contended that now the record of the courts below is available and this Hon'ble Court can decide the matter on the basis of the record available before it. 6. I am constrained to observe that a mistake has been committed in stating the facts by the petitioners under section 482, Cr. P. C. but it is possible that this mistake might have occurred in view of the fact that no fact were mentioned in the two orders of the court below. In any case the record of the trial Court as well as the learned Sessions Judge has been called and the case can be decided by this court on the basis of the record available. As already stated above the case relates to adulteration in `BESAN' and has nothing to do with the adulteration in the milk. 7. Before dealing with the objection which prevailed with the courts below it would be necessary to reproduce the two relevant notifications in this regard: "Local Self Government Department" NOTIFICATION No. 24653/ F. 8 (160) LSG/ 60 Jaipur, January 23, 1961. - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act No. 37 of 1954) the State Government hereby authorises Administrators appointed under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (Act No. 38 of 1959) to institute prosecution for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 or to give consent for such prosecution. Published in Raj-patra part II (a) dated December 14, 1961 at page 178.' "Notification No. F. 18 (17) MPH/74, Gr. I. S. O. 148 March 11, 1974 In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (Central Act No. 37 of 1954) the State Government hereby authorises all Collectors and District Magistrates in their respective jurisdictions to give written consent for institution prosecution for offences under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. (Published in Raj. Gaz. IV (Ga) II, date 14-5-74 page 154)** 8. The Courts below have taken the view that after the notification of 1974 the earlier notification of 1961 was automatically superseded and as such the Administrator of the Municipality concerned had no right to institute the prosecution or to give consent to such prosecution for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Courts below have taken the view that after the notification of 1974 the earlier notification of 1961 was automatically superseded and as such the Administrator of the Municipality concerned had no right to institute the prosecution or to give consent to such prosecution for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. According to them the offence has been committed on October 11, 1974, when the second notification of March 11, 1974, had already come into operation to authorise all Collectors and District Magistrates in their respective jurisdiction to give written consent for institution or prosecution for offences under the Act and thereafter the local authority had no right to file the prosecution. 9. In my view the courts below have taken a wrong approach in considering the effect of the two notifications. The second notification dated March 11, 1974, does not mention at all that the previous notification of 1961 has been superseded. In the notification of 1961, the Government in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 20 of the Act had authorised the administrators appointed under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 to institute or give consent for the prosecution of an offence under the Act. By the subsequent notification of March 11, 1974, the State Government also authorised all Collectors and District Magistrates in their respective jurisdiction to give written consent for institution prosecution for offences under the Act. Thus, by the second notification it cannot be assumed that the authority given to the Administrators by the notification dated January 23, 1961. was taken away. Even otherwise it appears that by the earlier notification only Administrators were authorised, who were appointed under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 and as such that notification covered the offences where there were Municipalities. However, there are areas which are not covered by the Municipal Council and where there are no administrators under the Municipalities Act and as such for such areas the Collector and District Magistrates in their respective jurisdiction could act under the second notification. In this view of the matter the courts below were clearly wrong in holding that the complaint filed by Health Officer, Sikar, who was authorised by the Administrator, Municipal Council, Sikar, was not competent to file the complaint. 10. In the result this petition is allowed. In this view of the matter the courts below were clearly wrong in holding that the complaint filed by Health Officer, Sikar, who was authorised by the Administrator, Municipal Council, Sikar, was not competent to file the complaint. 10. In the result this petition is allowed. The orders of the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate are set aside and the case is sent back to Chief Judicial Magistrate. Sikar, to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. Sd/- N.M. Kasliwal, J.Revision allowed. *******