JUDGMENT 1. - This is a State appeal against the acquittal of the accused persons under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (here in after referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that Ratan Singh, Food Inspector inspected the shop of M/s Mahavir Store located at Rui Katla, Pali on 26-4-1974. He took the sample of chilli powder and sent that to the Public Analyst for examination. The Public Analyst found the chilli powder adulterated. He sought the consent of the local authority and launched the prosecution against the accused persons. Learned Munsif Magistrate, Pali by his judgment dated 25-2-1978 held that the prosecution has not been able to establish that Sumer Raj is the owner of the shop, he further found that Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the Rules of 1955') was not complied with. It was observed by the learned Magistrate that since the chilly powder is a condiment and sample of 200 grams should have been sent to the Public Analyst as required under Rule 22 but the quantity sent by him was not sufficient, therefore, he gave benefit to the accused and acquitted them. 3. Aggrieved against this judgment the State of Rajasthan has filed the present appeal against the acquittal of the accused persons. 4. I heard both the learned Counsel and have also perused the record. 5. Mr. Kewal Chand, learned Counsel for the accused respondents raised the preliminary objection that according to the order sheet dated 17-8-1974, it is clear that the Assistant Public Prosecutor has filed the challan. In this connection, learned Counsel has invited my attention to S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 159 of 1978 Dhaliya v. State of Rajasthan decided on 29-11-1982 and has also invited my attention to State v. Sohan Lal, 1984 (1) PFA Cases 191 . 6. Learned counsel further submitted that under Section 20 of the Act, it was the Food Inspector, who was authorised to institute the prosecution and not the Assistant Public Prosecutor. But the present case has been treated a challan case and the Assistant Public Prosecutor who was not authorised to file the present complaint had presented the same. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that under Section 20 of the Act, it was the Food Inspector, who was authorised to institute the prosecution and not the Assistant Public Prosecutor. But the present case has been treated a challan case and the Assistant Public Prosecutor who was not authorised to file the present complaint had presented the same. I have perused the authority cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents and have also perused the record, I think that the contention of Mr. Kewal Chand is well founded. In the present case on perusal of the order-sheet, it appears that it has been filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor whereas it should have been filed by the Food Inspector who is authorised by the local authority. The complaint, which has been filed, does bear the signatures of the Food Inspector. But the prosecution has been launched and instituted by the Asst. Public Prosecutor, who is not authorised. In view of the decision of this court in State v. Dhaliya as well as Sohanlal the Assistant Public Prosecutor was not competent to launch the Prosecution, as such the whole prosecution was without jurisdiction. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******