JUDGMENT S.J. Hyder, J. - The applicant Lala Ram Prasad has filed this application and has prayed that this court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C. quash the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly dated April 29, 1978. The applicant carries on the business of khandsari and has a shop situate in mohalla Nai Basti in the city of Bareilly. In the said premises he also manufactures khandsari sugar. The food inspector V. K. Sharma, inspected the premises occupied by the applicant on November 22, 1976 and took samples of khandsari sugar from the stocks maintained by the applicant. The samples were sent to the public analyst and a report from his office was received on January 31, 1977. The Public Health Authority served a notice on the applicant asking him that he may if he so desires have the sample tested by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. On February 3, 1977 the applicant applied to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate requesting him to send the sample for purposes of testing to the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. On this application sealed bottles containing the samples were summoned in the court. At that stage the applicant raised objection that phials containing samples did not bear the labels as required by Rule 15 of the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the rules framed thereunder are referred the rules. He also raised an objection that the seals on the phials had been tampered with and were not visible and the same were not properly labled. He also made an application praying that he may be permitted to take photographs of the phials. The application was rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated May 31, 1977. The applicant then moved another application before the Magistrate stating that the phials containing the samples had been tampered with and were not in accordance with rules. The application was rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated May 31, 1977. The applicant then moved another application before the Magistrate stating that the phials containing the samples had been tampered with and were not in accordance with rules. That application was also rejected by the Magistrate by his second order passed on May 31, 1977 which reads as follows :- "That the seals and fastening on the sample phials are intact and according to Section 11, section 11(4) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act." At that stage the applicant moved the Court of District Judge, Bereilly for transfer of the case from the court of the judicial magistrate before whom it was pending. However, before the transfer application could be disposed of the Presiding Officer of the court was transferred to another district and a new officer took over charge as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly." The applicant repeated his request which had been made earlier. He moved another application to the same effect before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to satisfy himself that the phials containing the samples had been tampered with and were not in a fit state for being sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. This application was also rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by an order dated April 29, 1978 and it is the validity of this order which has been called in question by the applicant on the grounds stated above. 2. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State and the Food Inspector who is attending the case on behalf of the State has filed a counter affidavit. 3. The present application was moved in this court on December 20, 1978. While issuing rule nisi further proceedings in the case before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate were stayed by this court during the pendency of the proceedings before this court. It is, therefore, evident that the applicant has been able to stall the examination of the samples taken by the food inspector for over three years by making different applications before different courts. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has invited my attention to the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated April 29, 1978 which is impugned in these proceedings. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has invited my attention to the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated April 29, 1978 which is impugned in these proceedings. In the said order it is stated that the phials containing the samples were wrapped in bamboo paper which is tied with a chord and each phial contains four seals which are covered by the papers and are not visible to the naked eye. It is also stated in the said order that the paper in which the phials are wrapped bears the signatures of the applicant. The contention of the learnel counsel in short was that the seals should have been visible to the naked eye and since they were not in that state the provisions contained in Rule 15 and Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Act have been violated. I have considered the submission urged on behalf of the applicant and I am unable to accept it. Rules to which reference has been made do not contain any provision which requires or makes it obligatory on the part of the Food Inspector while taking the samples to wrap the phials first and put the seals thereafter. At all events the Food Inspector had put the seals first and wrapped the phials in paper subsequently. All that can he said is that he committed an irregularity which does not vitiate the proceedings. 5. learned counsel next contended that in his impugned order the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has directed the Director of the Central Food Laboratory to inspect the seals. According to him it was the duty of the Magistrate himself to examine the said phials and he could not delegate his judicial functions to the Director. This submission again is wholly fallacious and must be rejected out of hand. From the averments made in the application it is evident that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who passed the impugned order as well as his predecessor inspected the phials. They recorded definite orders that the phials were not tampered with they were in a proper state. The law also casts a duty on the Public Analyst and the Director Central Food Laboratory to inspect the seals and to satisfy themselves before subjecting the contents of the phials to an examination. They recorded definite orders that the phials were not tampered with they were in a proper state. The law also casts a duty on the Public Analyst and the Director Central Food Laboratory to inspect the seals and to satisfy themselves before subjecting the contents of the phials to an examination. The direction contained in the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate impugned in this application was perfectly in order and cannot be called in question. 6. The result is that this application fails and is hereby dismissed. The interim stay order dated December 20, 1978 is vacated.