ORDER.- Crl.M.P. No. 2434 of 1982 is an application made under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.147 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the 7th Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Crl. M.P. No. 2435 of 1982 is an application for stay pending disposal of the former application. 2. The facts which emerge for the complaint, the only record made available to this Court, besides the copy of the Analyst report, can be briefly noticed, Sri Manjoor Ahmed Khan, Food Inspector, inspected the premises of one Mangalmal on 30th March, 1981, and purchased 150,0 grams of ‘Kalpa Vanaspathi’ from a sealed tin in the presence of mediators. In the said shop, he found a total of 11 tins of Kalpa Vanaspathi available for sale for human consumption. There was a printed label on the sealed tin of Kalpa Vanaspathi which has been detached from the sealed tin under due attestation. He divided the 1500 grams of Kalpa Vanaspathi into three equal parts and placed each part into a clear dry and empty bottle. The firm of Mangalmal produced before the Food Inspector cash bill No. 976 dated 28th March, 1981, showing that the said 11 tins of kapa vanaspathi were supplied by another firm M/s. S.R. Traders, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. M/s. S.R. Traders were questioned regarding the sale and they, in their turn, furnished information by way of the original invoice dated 27th March, 1981, lorry way bill dated 27th March, 1981, and lorry supply office receipt dated 27th March, 1981, that they received the stocks of Kalpa Vanaspathi from the Vijayawada sales depot of M/s. Oswal Oils & Vanaspathi Limited and that the spies depot made the supply in the same condition as was supplied to it by the 2nd petitioner who is the manufacturer of vanaspathi at Madras. M/s. Mangalmal also communicated to the Food Inspector that they do not sell loose vanaspathi but they sell vanaspathi in sealed tins only and that the sample earlier taken by the Food Inspector was from one such sealed tin. One of the samples sent to the Public Analyst was analysed by the Public Analyst, whose report is that the sample contains excessive percentage of free fatty acid and it is, therefore, adulterated. The petitioners did not make available the copies of the correspondence which were referred to in the complaint petition as enclosed thereto. One of the samples sent to the Public Analyst was analysed by the Public Analyst, whose report is that the sample contains excessive percentage of free fatty acid and it is, therefore, adulterated. The petitioners did not make available the copies of the correspondence which were referred to in the complaint petition as enclosed thereto. In the complaint petition, the 1st petitioner was described as the nominee and manager of the 2nd petitioner. The analysts report shows that the sample was received by him on 31st March, 1981, and the report of the Analyst bears the date 14th May, 1981. It does not indicated the date on which the sample was analysed by the Public Analyst. This complaint was taken on file as C.C.No. 147 of 1981 on the file of the 7th Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 3. As can be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition, there is no dispute that the 1st petitioner is the manager of the 2nd petitioner company. The petitioners have set out various grounds in support of their request to quash the proceedings. Earlier, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.605 of 1982 for the same purpose. That was, however, dismissed on the 16th June, 1982, on the ground that the various grounds set out in the application are deforces that may be available to the petitioners and do not warrant the quashing of the proceedings. It is on exactly the same grounds the petitioners have again applied for quashing of the proceedings. It is not, however, disputed that the petitioners could file successive applications for quashing the proceedings. This is made clear by a decision of the Supreme Court in Superintendent and Legal Remembrancer, West Bengal v. Mohan Singh1 It has, therefore, become necessary to advert to the various submissions made in support of the petition by Mr. Sawhney, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Some of these submissions appear, ex facie, on the complaint petition itself. In an application filed under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, the Court should proceed on the hypothesis that the factual allegations made in the complaint petition are correct. 4. The first submission made, by Mr. Sawhney is that in respect of a sale of vanaspathi made at Hyderabad, the petitioners who are residents of Madras and who reside beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Hyderabad cannot be tried at Hyderabad. 4. The first submission made, by Mr. Sawhney is that in respect of a sale of vanaspathi made at Hyderabad, the petitioners who are residents of Madras and who reside beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Hyderabad cannot be tried at Hyderabad. Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, in its material terms, provides that no manufacturer shall sell such article to any vendor unless he also gives a warranty in writing in the prescribed form about the nature and quality of such article to the vendor, provided that a bill or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer, to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer under that section. Section 14-A of the Act provides that every vendor of an article of food shall is disclose to the Food Inspector the particulars of the person from whom he purchased the article of food. Section 19 of the Act provides for the defences available to a vendor. Among other things, it provided that a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence if he proves that he purchased the article of food from any manufacturer with a written warranty in the prescribed form and that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold in the same state as he purchased it. The complaint proceeded on the footing that the adulteration is attributable to the manufacturer himself and it is on that basis that the complaint is filed against the two petitioners. The submission made by Mr. Sawhney is that inasmuch as the local vendor at Hyderabad is not being prosecuted, the petitioners who have not sold the vanaspathi to the Food Inspector cannot, therefore, alone be tried before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. He has also called tohis aid the provisions of section 20-A of the Act in support of this submission; section 20-A provides for the power of Court to implead manufacturer in cases where the Court is satisfied on the evidence adduced before it during the trial of any offence alleged to have been committed by any person, that such manufacturer is also concerned with that offence. The sale, according to the complaint, was made by M/s. Mangalmal through its salesman. The sale, according to the complaint, was made by M/s. Mangalmal through its salesman. The Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad would have jurisdiction to take the case on his file, if the complaint laid also against M/s. Mangalmal or the salesman in question who sold the sample. The Magistrate would have no jurisdiction to take the complaint on his file against the petitioners who manufacture the product at Madras. A defence is not available to the local vendor. That is a matter to be decided by the Court and not a matter to be decided by the food inspector. To hold otherwise would result in the manufacturers being asked to take their trial at various places in the country whenever samples taken of vanaspathi manufactured by them are found to be adulterated, even for some acts of commission or omission one the part of persons making retail sales of their product. In M/s. Shivraj Tobacco Company and others v. State of Maharashtra1 this very question arose in respect of a pan masala manufactured by certain Kanpur firms, but samples were taken in different areas in the State of Maharashtra. The learned Judge held: “If the said vendor produces warranty from the manufacturers then the vendor and the manufacturers can be prosecuted where the sales has taken place from the vendor. But if the manufacturer alone is to be prosecuted then he will have to be prosecuted at his place of manufacture, where a sample may be taken by the Food Inspector, directly from the manufacturer concerned. In that case, it would be triable within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate where the said manufacturing factory is situate…… The complainant did not choose to prosecute the retailers but seeks to prosecute the manufacturers of Kanpur. No sale to the Food Inspector has taken place in Maharashtra of Vidarbha. Thus it would be beyond the jurisdiction vested in the learned Magistrate to prosecute the manufacturers of Kanpur for an alleged sale from a retail vendor in Vidarbha without prosecuting the retailers.” I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. It, therefore, follows that when the complaint is not made against the local vendor at Hyderabad, the Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad has no territorial jurisdiction to have taken the case on file against the two petitioners who live beyond his territorial jurisdiction. 5. It, therefore, follows that when the complaint is not made against the local vendor at Hyderabad, the Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad has no territorial jurisdiction to have taken the case on file against the two petitioners who live beyond his territorial jurisdiction. 5. The second major submission made by Sawhney is that rule 22-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is admittedly violated in this case and that the prosecution is therefore, vitiated for such contravention. The averments made in the complaint disclose that the 1500 grams of vanaspathi was obtained from a sealed tin containing a larger quantity. Rule 22-A in its material terms reads: “Where the food is sold in sealed containers having identical label declaration, the contents of one of more of such containers as may be required to satisfy the quantity prescribed in rule 22 shall be treated to be part of the sample-” Under rule 22, the approximate quantity of vanaspathi to be supplied for analyst is 500 grams. The submission of Mr. Sawhney is that when one vanaspathi is in a sealed container, it is not open for the Food Inspector to compel the Vendor to open the sealed container and purchase the required quantity of vanaspathi as by doing so he will be depriving the vendor of a defence open to him by showing that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it. Notwithstanding some decisions of other High Courts rendered on his subject in support of this submission, I do not feel persuaded to read rule 22-A in that restricted manner. Rule 22-A provides that the Food Inspector can take the contents of one or more of such containers to satisfy the quantity prescribed in rule 22. If more than the approximate quantity required by the Food Inspector available in a sealed container, there is nothing illegal if the Food Inspector purchases the required quantity from one such container. Having regard to the manner in which I would read that Rule, it is unnecessary to refer to the decisions rendered by other High Courts on the basis of which Mr. Sawhney had made this sub. mission. Having regard to the manner in which I would read that Rule, it is unnecessary to refer to the decisions rendered by other High Courts on the basis of which Mr. Sawhney had made this sub. mission. I should, however, refer to the decision in Public Prosecutor v. Netti Nagamani1 rendered by this Court, certain sweets were the article of food, under rule 22, the approximate quantity to be sent to the Analyst is 200 grams. The Food Inspector purchased three packets, each pocket containing 200 grams. The sweets were found to contain Rhodamin B which is not a permitted coal tar dye to be used for colouring the sweets. The argument was that the analysis of sweets was not made from the same packet, but from three separate packets. This Court held that in so construing rule 22 , the Magistrate overlooked the provisions of rule 22-A. This Court only stated that if each packet contained less than the quantity purchased by the Food Inspector, he could purchase the required number of packets to meet the requirements of the Act. This is not an authority to support any submission that the Food Inspector should purchase more than the quantity required for purposes of the Act when the sealed tin contains a quantity more than the quantity required for purposes of the Act. 6. Mr. Sawhney made various other sub missions which arise only for an appreciation of the evidence and do not appear from either the complaint petitioner the Analyst report which are made available to this Court. Those submissions relate to: (1) the validity of the sanction; (2) the negligible quantity of the free fatty acid which could have been found for a variety of reasons like delay in analysing the sample; (3) whether any preservative was added to the sample; (4) how for the petitioners are prejudiced when a copy of the Analyst report is not furnished to them; (5) whether the 1st petitioner could prosecuted in the absence of any material to indicate that he is the nominee or the manager designated under the Act or whether he is in charge of the business. These matters do not call for consideration in these proceedings,as a proper finding can be given only on an appreciation of the evidence which the prosecution has yet to let in. 7. These matters do not call for consideration in these proceedings,as a proper finding can be given only on an appreciation of the evidence which the prosecution has yet to let in. 7. To conclude, the petitioners have succeeded only on the point that the Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad had no jurisdiction to take the complaint filed only against them when such complaint was not also filed against the local vendor at Hyderabad from whom the sample of vanaspathi was obtained. 8. The petitioner, in the result is allowed quashing the proceedings in CO. No.. 147 of 1981 on the file of the 7th Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 9. The stay petition is dismissed as no longer necessary. C.V.N.R. ----- Petition allowed.