JUDGMENT V. K. Khanna, J. - This is a petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the criminal proceedings launched against the applicant under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act pending against the applicant in Criminal Case No. 809 of 1981 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. 2. Brief facts for the purposes of deciding the present application are that a sample of mustard oil was taken by the Food Inspector on 20th January, 1979. The sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst whose report dated 28.2.1979 reveals that soponification value was in excess of the prescribed standard for the mustard oil. A complaint was thereafter filed against the applicant which was registered as Criminal Case No. 1243 of 1980 State v. Sri Ballabh. 3. Learned counsel for applicant has urged in this application that on the report of the Public Analyst and also from the statement of the Public Analyst recorded under section 240 Cr. P.C. the applicant has not contravened any provision of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). In support of his argument the learned counsel for the applicant referred to the standard prescribed for imported rapeseed oil A.17.18 which prescribes the soponification value as 166-198. On the aforesaid basis it has been argued that at the relevant time there was no bar under the Act in selling the mixture of rapeseed oil and mustard oil and the soponification value being in conformity with the standard prescribed for the imported rapeseed oil, it could not be said that the oil which was sold was adulterated. Learned counsel appearing for the State has, however, urged that the mustard oil which had been sold by the applicant to the Food Inspector will be an adulterated oil in view of the provisions of section 7 (i) and (iv). There cannot be any doubt that from the report of the Public Analyst the sample of mustard oil which was purchased from the applicant does not conform to the standard prescribed under item A. 17.06 as soponification value does not conform to the standard prescribed under this item. As far as the soponification value which has been found by the Public Analyst in the sample it does conform to the standard prescribed for imported rapeseed oil under item A. 17.18. As far as the soponification value which has been found by the Public Analyst in the sample it does conform to the standard prescribed for imported rapeseed oil under item A. 17.18. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that rule 44 (e) of the Rules framed under the Act, which prohibits selling admixtures of two or more edible oils as an edible oil was not applicable to the present case in view of the proviso inserted by Notification No. GSR 732 (E) dated 5.12.1977 and Fourth Amendment by GSR 732 (E) dated 5.12.1977 vide GSR 821. dated 12.6.1978, 4. It is not disputed that the sample in this case was taken on 20th January, 1979. Fourth Amendment Rule, 1977 came into force on 12.6.1978 and, therefore, in view of proviso added 10 clause (e) of rule 44 would remain in operation for a period of one year from the date commencement of the Fourth Amendment Rules, 1977. Rule 44 (e) will, therefore, have no application in so far as mixing imported rapeseed oil with mustard oil was concerned and thus the applicant could not have said to have contravened the provisions of rule 44(e) of the Rules framed under the Act as admittedly no standard was prescribed by the Central Government for the admixture of imported rapeseed oil with mustard oil at the time of the taking of the sample. The contention of the State Counsel, therefore, that the applicant contravened the provisions of section 7 (v) on account of having contravened the provisions of rule 44 (e) of I he Act be prosecuted on that ground. It has then to be considered as to whether the applicant has contravened the provisions of section 7 (i) by selling adulterated food. Learned counsel appearing for the State has placed reliance on the definition of 'Adulterated' as given in section 2 (a). It has then to be considered as to whether the applicant has contravened the provisions of section 7 (i) by selling adulterated food. Learned counsel appearing for the State has placed reliance on the definition of 'Adulterated' as given in section 2 (a). The relevant part of the definition runs as follows: "Adulterated"' - an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated- (a) if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be;" From the standard prescribed under the rules, as noted above, it is clear that Mustard oil (Sarson Ka Tel) and imported oil (Toria Ka Tel) have been treated as two different edible oils having different standards prescribed for them. The Food Inspector purchased mustard oil from the applicant and the first question which has to be determined is as to whether when mustard oil was sought to be purchased from the applicant whether it has to conform to the standard prescribed under item A. 17.06 or it could also conform the standard prescribed under item A. 17.18. In my opinion, in common parlance when only mustard oil is being sought to be purchased the intention of the purchaser is clear that he does not want to purchase imported rapeseed oil. Thus when a person is purchasing mustard oil the standard to it which it should conform is the standard prescribed under item A. 17.06. In case the purchaser has not been supplied the commodity which he was seeking to purchase, the question then arises as to whether the article of food will be deemed to be adulterated as defined under section 2 (a) of the Act. The definition lays emphasis that the article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated in case it is not of the nature, substance and the quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be. As has been observed above, imported rapeseed oil and mustard oil are two distinct edible oils which are known as such in common parlance and also according to the different standards prescribed under the rules. As has been observed above, imported rapeseed oil and mustard oil are two distinct edible oils which are known as such in common parlance and also according to the different standards prescribed under the rules. In case the person asked for mustard oil (which is manufactured from the mustard seed produced in India) and is supplied imported rapeseed oil there cannot be any manner of doubt that the nature, substance or quality of the article which is demanded by the purchaser is not the same. The edible oil which is supplied to the purchaser is a different commodity altogether. Thus, in my opinion, the said article of food shall be termed to be adulterated as defined in section 2 (a) of the Act. It is being made clear that in case the applicant raises any other question before the concerned court, the same shall be decided in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the parties. 5. For the reasons stated above, in my opinion at this stage it can not be said that no offence has been made out against the applicant and the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed under section 482 Cr. P.C. 6. For the reasons stated above, the present application fails and is rejected. The stay order granted by this court on 25.11.1981 is vacated. A copy of this order shall be sent to the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi within a week from today so that proceedings may be concluded at an early date.