JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Order of trial Court dropping the prosecution u/s 268, Criminal Procedure Code is grievance of the prosecutor in this revision. Opposite parties were being prosecuted u/s 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rules 45 and 50 of the Central Rules made thereunder. 2. Prosecution case is that accused persons carry on business of sale of food articles in the shop named Bharat General Store within the limits of Parlakhemundi Municipality. On 31-8-1989, Food Inspector. Parlakhemundi under the Subdivisipnal Medical Officer of that Subdivision visited the shop and made statutory purchase of food articles for analysis. After getting the samples examined by the public analyst. Food Inspector submitted the prosecution report against the accused for having committed the offence as stated earlier. 3. Cognizance was taken of the offence on 31-5-1990 and process was issued to the opposite parties to appear on 19-7- 1990 to face trial. After appearance, opposite parties filed an application on 1-8- 1930 that the food articles alleged to be adulterated were seized within municipal area of Parlakhemundi and therefore, local Health Authority being the Municipal Board/Council and not the Chief District Medical Officer, Ganjam, prosecution report submitted by the Food Inspector with consent oi the Chief District. Medical Officer is not valid in law. Hence the accused were to be released of the harassment of facing a futile trial. 4. Learned Magistrate taking note of Section 2(viii) and Section 20 of the Act and Rule 12 of the Orissa Rules made under the Act dropped the prosecution u/s 258, Cr P C, relying upon the decision repotted in 1990 (II) OLR 58 (Tarachand Agarwala v. Cuttack Municipality) which is grievance of the prosecutor. 5. Mr. P. K. Rout learned Additional Standing Counsel appea- ring as Public Prosecutor submitted that Food Inspector has been conferred jurisdiction over the entire Parlakhemundi Subdivision in Notification No. 31037 dated 21-9-1983 which includes Parlakhemundi Municipal area also. He submitted that the application having been filed on 1-8-1991 and impugned order having been passed on 5-8-1991, learned Additional Public Prosecutor was not given reasonable opportunity to obtain instruction and produce the notification. He has, therefore, prayed to set aside the order and direct trial of the accused persons. Lastly Mr. He submitted that the application having been filed on 1-8-1991 and impugned order having been passed on 5-8-1991, learned Additional Public Prosecutor was not given reasonable opportunity to obtain instruction and produce the notification. He has, therefore, prayed to set aside the order and direct trial of the accused persons. Lastly Mr. Rout submitted that power u/s 258, Cr P C, could not have been exercised, in this case. 6. Mr. S. C. Lal, learned counsel for the accused persons submitted that learned Additional Public Prosecutor never requested to Court for adjournment to enable him to obtains instruction. When a specific local authority has been declared for municipal areas, automatically the same is excluded from other areas though the municipal area comes within the wider area. If the notifying authority would have intended to include municipal area of Parlakhemundi the area could have been specifically included. In such circumstances, the impugned order should not be interfered with. 7. Section 258, Cr PC is in Chapter XX of Criminal Procedure Code which deal with trial of summons cases. As the section itself reads Section 258 applies to summons cases. It reads as follows ; "258. Power to stop proceedings in certain cases-In any summons case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of procee dings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other cases release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge. This section correspondents to Section 249 of the old Code, The section is applicable only to summons cases whereas the old provisions was applicable to all cases. There is an old provision within, was applicable to all cases. There is an improvement in this section resulting in acquittal of discharge of the accused as the case may be." Summons case as defined in Section 2(w) is one which is not a warrant case. Warrant case has been defined in Section 2 (x). There is an old provision within, was applicable to all cases. There is an improvement in this section resulting in acquittal of discharge of the accused as the case may be." Summons case as defined in Section 2(w) is one which is not a warrant case. Warrant case has been defined in Section 2 (x). It reads as follows: "Warrant case' means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term execeding two years." While considering power, u/s 258. Cr PC, learned Magistrate ought to wave considered whether the prosecution is in a summons case. When a power is 'exercised without convicting whether the Court exercising the power possesses the same on the facts and circumstances, the order is arbitrary in nature and becomes vulnerable. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor required no instruction on this question. His legal knowledge and study would have been enough to advise the Court that power could not have been exercised since the prosecution is not in respect of the summons case. 8. Additional Public Prosecutor is appointed u/s 24, Cr PC. Minimum experience of seven years as an Advocate is required to be eligible to be appointed as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor. For appointment. District Magistrate is to prepare a panel of names in consultation with the Sessions Judge as provided in Section 24(4), Cr PC. and no person whose name does not find place in the panel is to be appointed as provided in Section 24(5). Guideline provided in Cr PC is such that in case the panel is prepared fairly by application of mind, only competent persons would be appointed. In this respect. Sessions Judge plays an important role. He has to keep note of competence of Advocates of seven years experience to suggest the names to be Public Prosecutors. In case he is not a Judge in the station, he has to gather information from the Judges and Magistrates at the station. Whether required by statute or not Sessions Judges should collect reports of Judges and Magistrates about the performances of Advocates to be ready up-to-date to be consulted. In case he is not a Judge in the station, he has to gather information from the Judges and Magistrates at the station. Whether required by statute or not Sessions Judges should collect reports of Judges and Magistrates about the performances of Advocates to be ready up-to-date to be consulted. Similarly, Collector of the District should also keep note of Advocates who would be suitable to be Public Prosecutors Consultation by correspondence though not in violation of Section 24, it is desirables that Collector should himself approach the Sessions Judge and have consultation across the table followed by correspondence. Government should accept the placement of Collector. Where State Government is of opinion that the placement by the Collector is not correct for reasons to be recorded in writing, the position should be changed. Panel prepared, by Collector should be made public so that every person who feels the same to be not correct appreciation, can object to it before the State Government. Unless political philosophy of a person does not stand on the way of discharge of duties as a public prosecutor, he should not be deprived of the appointment If these guidelines are followed, best available Advocates willing to be Public Prosecutors can be appointed and the prosecution would be appropriate, in spite of best selection, irregularity in payment of fees and other expenses at times makes the Public Prosecutors insincere. Adequate care should be taken so that the Public Prosecutors get their legitimate dues like the Collector or the Sessions Judge getting their monthly salary. Frequent change of Public Prosecutors with changes of cabinet brings in a surmise that all considerations other than real merit is the basis of appointment. Once there is a mistake though innocent, until explained, the surmises gain ground and continuous surmises in different areas may lead to the surmise being a presumption of fact. However, Magistrates are not free from blame where a Public Prosecutor is deficient. He is to be more careful to examine the matter before it since people have not yet lost faith in the judicial system of our Republic. They are to maintain it. 9. However, Magistrates are not free from blame where a Public Prosecutor is deficient. He is to be more careful to examine the matter before it since people have not yet lost faith in the judicial system of our Republic. They are to maintain it. 9. Even though learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not bring it to notice of the Court that Section 258, Cr PC may not apply since a prosecution u/s 16(t)(a)(i) of the Act where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1, 000/- as is provided therein comes within the mean- ing of warrant case, and learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to exercise power u/s 258, CrPC to drop a proceeding. Impugned order is vulnerable on this ground alone. 10. Main ground of exercise of power by learned Magistrate is that no cognizance of the offence could have been taken in view of the restriction u/s 20(1) of the Act which as it stands now reads as follows : "20. Cognizance and trial of offences : (1) No prosecution for an offence under this Act, not being an offence u/s 14 or Section 14-A shall be instituted except by or with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Centrai Government or the State Government : Provided that a prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted by a purchaser or recognised consumer association referred to in Section 12 if he or it produces in Court a copy of the report of the public analyst along with the complaint. (2) xxx xxx xxx" Perusal of the aforesaid sub-section leaves no room for doubt that prosecution for an offence u/s 16(t)(a)(i) of the Act can be instituted with written assent of Central Government, State Government or a person authorised on this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government by general or special order. As the proviso indicates a purchaser of a food article can also institute a prosecution if he produces the report of the public analyst along with the complaint. As the proviso indicates a purchaser of a food article can also institute a prosecution if he produces the report of the public analyst along with the complaint. A recognised Consumer Association can also institute a prosecution if the report of public analyst is produced along with the complaint. For the purchaser or the recognised consumer association written consent is not necessary, 11. Purchaser is a person who is competent to purchase, has paid or promised to pay the price of the goods purchased and has received the goods he has intended to purchase. There is no compulsion for the seller to a person who is not authorised to purchase. If accused persons would have refused to sell to the Food Inspector.they might have been prosecuted for the same. If prosecuted, they could have taken the plea that he was not authorised as Food Inspector to purchase and might have been acquitted if it would have been explained that the Food Inspector had no authority to purchase to analyse the food article and prosecute them. Having sold the food articles, they brought the Food Inspector within category of purchaser. Even if the Food Inspector would have no authority to submit prosecution report against the accused persons as purchaser, he was competent to file the complaint provided the report of the public analyst is filed along with the complaint. Therefore, while taking cognizance Court is to consider whether the complainant who submitted the prosecution report is the purchaser of the food article even if it comes to conclusion that such Food Inspector i s not authorised under the main sub-section, to institute the prosecution. Where, the Food Inspector who has purdhased the food article for analysis is the one who filed the prosecution report, cognizance would be bad in view of bar u/s 20(1) of the Act since such Food Inspector would not come within the category of purchaser to be competent to file complaint under the proviso to Section 20(1). Now, even a recognised consumer association can file a complaint in respect of purchase by a person even if such person is not a member of that association. However, Section 12 is to be complied with. 12. In the decision of this Court reported in 1990 (II) QLR 55 (supra)an accused was convicted for selling food article without licence. Accused possessed a licence from medical Superintendent of South Eastern Railways. However, Section 12 is to be complied with. 12. In the decision of this Court reported in 1990 (II) QLR 55 (supra)an accused was convicted for selling food article without licence. Accused possessed a licence from medical Superintendent of South Eastern Railways. He, however, did not possess a licence of Cuttadt Municipality. Since the area was Malgodown area of Cuttack which was held to be within jurisdiction of Railway authorities, it was held that absence of licence from Cuttack Municipality cannot be the basis for the Food Inspector, Cuttack Municipality to institute prosecution against the accused. Question whether the Food Inspector as purchaser could have filed the complaint u/s 20(1) proviso of the Act for valid cognizance was not raised to be decided. Accordingly, the said decision would be of no assistance to accused persons in this case. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, learned Magistrate is not correct to apply Section 258 CrPC and is also not correct to find that he was not competent to take cognizance. Impugned order is set aside. 14. Speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused under Art. 21 of the Constitution as has been observed in Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak and another etc. etc.. It is also the public policy since in case of conviction and sentence it would have impact on the society. Speedy trial also helps in bringing all materials to record which in course of time may not be available. Therefore, I direct that trial of accused shall continue and accused would Be at liberty to explain to the satisfaction of the Court that cognizance was not competent. Learned Public Prosecutor can also satisfy the Court that the Food Inspector who submitted the prosecution report was competent by producing the Orissa Gazette where such notification was published as claimed by Mr. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel. Trial Court shall consider the effect of such notification published in official gazette, if produced. 15. In result, this application is allowed and impugned order is set aside. Final Result : Allowed