G. B. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under S. 482 of the Cri. P. C. for quashing of the charges framed against the petitioners under Ss. 485, 486 and 487 of the I. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the "code") and S. 16 (1) (a) (i) read with S. 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). ( 2 ) WHEN this matter was heard by one of us, namely Hon'ble Justice B. K. Behera, several important questions having arisen for consideration and no direct decision either of the Supreme Court or of this Court being there on the points, it was directed that the case be placed before a larger Bench for disposal and that is how the matter has come before the Division Bench. ( 3 ) ON 5-8-1979, the godown premises of the petitioners was raided by Mangalabal Police people and several articles were seized. The seized articles were mustard oil. Vanaspati, coconut oil of different brands. After seizure, the Food Inspector of Cuttack Municipality drew two samples from mustard oil and palmoline oil and sent the same to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the samples which had been sent for analysis were found to be in conformity with the prescribed standards Subsequently, on 12-10-1979, one Agmark Inspector was called by the Investigation Officer and samples of mustard oil having been drawn were analysed in the Agmark. Laboratory and according to the prosecution case, it was found to be adulterated Thereafter the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet under Ss. 417, 270, 273, 482 485, 486 and 487 of the Code and S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act as well as Ss. 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. When the matter was considered before the Court for framing of charges the prosecution did not press for framing of charges under Ss. 417 and 270 of the Code as well as Ss. 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and ultimately charges were framed under Ss. 485, 486 and 487 of the Code as well as S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. The accused persons have prayed for quashing of the aforesaid charges. 417 and 270 of the Code as well as Ss. 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and ultimately charges were framed under Ss. 485, 486 and 487 of the Code as well as S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. The accused persons have prayed for quashing of the aforesaid charges. ( 4 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge as well as when the case was heard before the Division Bench the learned Public Prosecutor concedes that the charge under S. 486 of the Code cannot be sustained in view of the bar provided under S. 468 of the Cri. P. C. So far as the charges under Ss. 485 and 487 of the Code are concerned, though Mr. Pasayat appearing for the petitioners raises the contention that the materials are insufficient for framing the charges, yet we are not inclined to agree with the submission, since at this stage it cannot be said that there is no material whatsoever in support of those charges. It is too well settled that the charges framed by a Magistrate can be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction only when the High Court comes to the conclusion that the entire materials taken on their face value would not constitute the offence in question. Applying the said test to the facts and circumstances of the case together with the materials on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the charges framed under Ss. 485 and 487 of the Penal Code. The said charges must, therefore, remain and would be tried by the Magistrate. ( 5 ) THE only other question which remains for our consideration is the charge framed under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. Mr. Pasayat for the petitioners raises several legal submissions in this regard namely :- (I) The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act being a special statute and the procedure for investigation as well as the procedure to be adopted thereafter having been enumerated in the said Act, the general law provided under the provisions of the Cri. P. C. will not apply and, therefore, the investigation as well as the prosecution must be held to be bad in law. P. C. will not apply and, therefore, the investigation as well as the prosecution must be held to be bad in law. (ii) The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act prescribes that the analysis can be done either to the state Laboratory or the Central Laboratory and it is not possible, therefore, to prosecuted person by making the analysis in some private laboratories. (iii) Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it is only the Food Inspector who alone is authorised to take sample, but the same not having been done and the sample having been taken by an 'agmark' Inspector, no further proceedings would lie on the analysis of that sample. (iv) The mandatory requirements of S. 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act not having been complied with, the proceeding is vitiated. (v) Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides that within ten days of the initiation of the prosecution, the report of the analyst has to be sent to the accused. Admittedly, the same not having been done though several months have elapsed, the entire proceeding is vitiated. (iv) The delay in launching the prosecution itself is fatal to the prosecution. (vii) Rule 7 (3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rule indicates that the copies of the reports should be in Form-III and this mandatory requirement not having been complied with, the so-called report from Agmark Laboratory cannot be looked into. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contends that where an offence is cognizable, any police officer is empowered P. C. to investigate under the provisions of the Cri. P. C. and since an offence under S. 16 of the Act is cognisable, the police authorities were competent enough to investigate into the offence and file charge-sheet. He further submits that the offence being one on the face of it a most heinous offence affecting public health and the nation's wealth, the courts should not construe any provision in a manner which benefits the accused and, therefore, the report of the Agmark Laboratory, Nagpur, which is also a competent laboratory for analysis must be held to be food and may be relied upon as evidence in he case. The learned Public Prosecutor further contends that even though. the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act are a complete case by themselves, yet the Cri. The learned Public Prosecutor further contends that even though. the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act are a complete case by themselves, yet the Cri. P. C. cannot be wiped off and the prosecution of the petitioners after due investigation under the Cr. P. C. cannot be held to be bad in law. The learned Public Prosecutor on instruction concedes that the procedure proscribed under the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, namely Ss. 10 and 13 (2), have not been complied with, but contends that infraction of those provisions would not vitiate the proceedings since the Police Officer has conducted the investigation under the provisions of the Cri. P. C. and has submitted charge-sheet in respect of the offence in question. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and without deciding the larger issues and important questions urged on behalf of either party relating to the charge under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, we think that the matter can be disposed of on a smaller point. Adulteration of food being a menace to public health and with the object of eradicating that anti-social evil and for ensuring purity in the articles of food, the Parliament enacted the law relating to food adulteration called the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which came into force by a Notification in the Official Gazette with effect from 1st, of June, 1956. The Act contained 25 Sections and is a complete Code by itself. Section 24 of the Act authorises the State Government to make Rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. The Central Government, in fact, has framed the Rules called the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. Section 13 of the Act speaks of the report of the Public Analyst. Section 24 of the Act authorises the State Government to make Rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. The Central Government, in fact, has framed the Rules called the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. Section 13 of the Act speaks of the report of the Public Analyst. Sub-Section (2) of S. 13 casts an obligation on the prosecution that on receipt of the report of the result of the analysis to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, after institution of the prosecution against the person from whom the sample of article of food was taken, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis must be forwarded informing the person concerned that if he so desires then he can make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of article of food analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. This requirement has been held to for mandatory since that provides a safeguard for the accused and under S. 13 (3) the certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report given by the Public analyst. Such valuable right of the accuse cannot be taken away by the investigating agency on a plea that the investigation is by the Police officers under the provisions of the Cri. P. C. and not under the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act. It has been held by several Courts that the requirement of S. 13 (2) of the Act is mandatory in nature. In our considered opinion, the safeguard provided for in S. 13 (2) of the Act conferring a right on the accused to require the article of food in question to be sent for analysis to the Central Laboratory and the report of such Central Laboratory superseding all other reports, cannot be whittled down on the plea that the investigation being made under the provisions of the Cr. P. C. , it is not necessary to follow the procedure provided for under the Food Adulteration Act. P. C. , it is not necessary to follow the procedure provided for under the Food Adulteration Act. or on the ground that the narrow pedantic and literal construction likely to leave loopholes for this dangerous criminal tribe to sneak out of the meshes of the law should be discouraged Howsoever laudable the object may be and howsoever heinous the offence may be, an accused cannot be converted without trial. Similarly, the minimum safeguard and rights conferred on the accused under any statute cannot be given a go-by on a plea that the offence in question is an offence against public health and national wealth. In the present case, admittedly, after receiving the report of the Agmark Laboratory a copy of the same has not been forwarded to the accused informing him of his rights provided under S. 13 (2) of the Act to apply to the Court for sending one sample for analyst by the Central Food Laboratory and such an inaction must be held to be fatal to the prosecution case, even if it is held that a police officer is entitled to investigate into any cognisable offence and as such an offence under S. 16 of the Food Adulteration Act. Consequently, the charge under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act must be quashed and the same is accordingly quashed. ( 7 ) IN the net result, therefore, the charges framed under S. 486 of the code and S. 16 (10) (a) (i) if the Act are quashed and the prosecution would now continue in respect of charges under Ss. 485 and 487 of the Code. The charges had been framed on 26-2-1983 and more than four and half years have elapsed in the meantime. We would, therefore, call upon the learned Magistrate to expedite the trial of the case in respect of the charges under Ss. 485 and 486 of the Penal Code. ( 8 ) THIS Criminal Miscellaneous case is accordingly allowed in part to the extent indicated above. ( 9 ) BEHERA, J. : -. I agree. Application partly allowed. .