JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - In this petition the Petitioner has invoked the inherent powers of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) for quashing the order of cognizance of an offence u/s 16(1)(a)(i) for contravention of Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against him. 2. The brief facts of the case revealed from the prosecution report filed by a Food Inspector is that opposite parties 2 and 3 are dealers of grocery articles of village Sainkula (Barapada), P.S. Ramachandrapur of Keonjhar district, whereas, the Petitioner is a wholesale grocery dealer of malgodown, Cuttack. On 13-11-1984 the Food Inspector inspected the grocery shop of opposite parties 2 and 3 and suspected that Postak exhibited for sale in the shop for human consumption was adulterated. Therefore, after complying with necessary formalities, he purchased Postak and sent the sample for chemical analysis by the Public Analyst of the Government of Orissa. The Public Analyst reported on 14-11-1984 that the sample Postak was adulterated. Opposite parties 2 and 3, had disclosed before the Food Inspector that Postak had been purchased from the Petitioner. Therefore, after close of investigation the Food Inspector submitted prosecution report not only against opposite parties 2 and 3 but also against the Petitioner on the basis of which the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandapur took cognizance for the offence already referred to above. 3. Mr. S.C. Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner urged that there are absolutely no allegations against the Petitioner even if all the facts stated in the prosecution report are assumed to be correct so as to warrant the impugned order. Therefore, to proceed with the case would be gross abuse of the process of the court. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, urged that there are materials to reveal a prima facie case against the Petitioner. 4. The guidelines for exercise of powers u/s 482 of the Code for quashing a criminal proceeding have been firmly established by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab. The guidelines generally are: (i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. The State of Punjab. The guidelines generally are: (i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. (ii) Where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. (iii) Where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation mayor may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its inherent jurisdiction the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained. The above guidelines have consistently been followed by this Court, in a large number of cases including the cases reported in Lord Match Industries v. M.S. Selvasekharan 55 (1983) C.L.T. 24, Prafulla Mohanty v. Ashok Kumar Das 56 (1938) C.L.T. 105 and in Sarat Kumar Patnaik, Managing Director, Konark Television Ltd. v. New Haryana Transport Co. Crl. Misc. Case No. 126 of 1984-D/29-7-1986 (disposed of on 29-7-86). 5. Now to facts: Having examined the records of the case very carefully I find only two references to the Petitioner. The first reference is in the prosecution report to the effect that opposite parties 2 and 3 disclosed the name of the Petitioner from whom they had purchased the Postak. Case No. 126 of 1984-D/29-7-1986 (disposed of on 29-7-86). 5. Now to facts: Having examined the records of the case very carefully I find only two references to the Petitioner. The first reference is in the prosecution report to the effect that opposite parties 2 and 3 disclosed the name of the Petitioner from whom they had purchased the Postak. The second reference is in the notice u/s 11(a) of the Act, form VI where it is stated that opposite parties 2 and 3 had purchased the Postak from the Petitioner vide challan No. 100 dated 16-7-1984, about four months prior to the detection of the alleged offence. Assuming the Postak had been purchased by opposite parties 2 and 3 from the Petitioner, it does not by itself make out even a prima facie case that the Petitioner had adulterated Postak because the sample Postak was neither purchased nor seized from the Petitioner's godown. No nexus has also been prima facie shown between the stock of Postak in the godown of the Petitioner and the sample Postak purchased by the Food Inspector from opposite parties 2 and 3. It has not been discussed in the prosecution report that the Petitioner was suspected to have adulterated Postak in his godown at Cuttack from which stock sale was effected in favour of opposite parties 2 and 3 and from which sample Postak was purchased by the Food Inspector. The challan of purchase is not in the record and even if it would be there, it would not connect the Postak purchased under it and the sample Postak found to be adulterated. The aforesaid facts will thus show that a prima facie case against the Petitioner has not even been reflected in the prosecution report and otherwise there are no materials on record to give rise to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate so as to pass the order of cognizance. These aspects were obviously not considered by him and the order seems to have been passed in a mechanical manner. In my view, therefore, continuance of the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner shall be an abuse of the process of the Court. 6. In the result, the criminal misc. case is allowed and the impugned order of cognizance so far it relates to the Petitioner is quashed. The criminal case, however, shall proceed against opposite parties 2 and 3. In my view, therefore, continuance of the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner shall be an abuse of the process of the Court. 6. In the result, the criminal misc. case is allowed and the impugned order of cognizance so far it relates to the Petitioner is quashed. The criminal case, however, shall proceed against opposite parties 2 and 3. Final Result : Allowed