JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. Perused the record of the lower court. 2. Mr. Brijesh Sharma has strenuously contended that since the complaint under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was filed by the A.P.P.-I, Tonk in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk, who was not authorised to file and prosecute the complaint and as such the impugned order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 31.7.85 rejecting the preliminary objection taken by the petitioner in this behalf deserves to be quashed. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the following cases: (i) State v. Sohan Lal, 1984 (1) FAC -191. (ii) State v. Bhera Ram & Ann, 1987 WLN(UC) -465. (iii) Nihal Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 WLN (UC) - 508. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has asserted that in fact the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector in the court, who along with the complaint also filed an application for dispensing with his personal attendance, therefore, it is wrong to contend that this complaint was filed by an unauthorised person. He has, thus reiterated the reasoning given by the learned Magistrate. 4. 1 have anxiously considered the rival submissions. A careful perusal of the criminal complaint filed against petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act unmistakably reveals that though it is signed by the Food Inspector Kutubuddin Khan, but in fact it was submitted by the Addl. Public Prosecutor, who made a note thereon "submitted and put his signatures". In the order dated 15.9.81, it has been in most unequivocal, unambiguous and explicit terms mentioned that the criminal complaint was filed on behalf of the Food Inspector,Tonk by the Addl. Public Prosecutor against the petitioner and others. It has also been mentioned that an application has been filed for personal exemption of the Food Inspector through the A.P.P. The order sheet has not been signed by the Food Inspector. Therefore, it stands well established that the said criminal complaint was in fact filed in the court by the A.P.P. on 15.9.81 and that on that day the Food Inspector was not present in the Court. The prosecution sanction was accorded by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Tonk, who was the local authority, in favour of Kutubuddin Khan, Food Inspector vide sanction letter Ex.P.12. The prosecution sanction was accorded by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Tonk, who was the local authority, in favour of Kutubuddin Khan, Food Inspector vide sanction letter Ex.P.12. Therefore, the said Food Inspector had no authority to further delegate his power to launch prosecution against the accused persons in favour of the A.P.P.-I Again no such document was filed on behalf of the prosecution to prove that State Government by any specific or general order had authorised the A.P.P.-I to file the criminal complaint under Section 7/16 P.F. Act and to prosecute on behalf of the Food Inspector. 5. Similar were the facts in Sohan Lal's case (supra), wherein relying on the law laid down in Dhaliya v. State of Rajasthan Criminal Revision No.157/78 decided on 29.11.82 it was held that the Asstt. Public Prosecutor is not competent and has no authority to present the complaint on behalf of the Municipal Board or the Food Inspector or to conduct the case on their behalf and that the said infirmity was not curable as it went to the root of the matter and the trial was vitiated. 6. In State v. Bhera Ram (supra ) the same view was taken and the objection taken under section 20 of the P.F. Act was sustained. 7. In Nihal Chand's case (supra), it has been reiterated that A.P.P. has no authority to file the complaint for the offence under section 7/16 of the Act and the proceedings taken against the accused being not according to law and initiated by an unauthorised person and the conviction based on such a trial was bad in law. Incidentally Nihal Chand's case was also from Tonk where the Food Inspector was authorised to file the complaint but instead the same was filed by the A.P.P. 8. Therefore, taking into consideration the consistent view of this Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 9. In the result this petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk dated 31.7.85 is hereby set aside and further proceedings in the matter on the criminal complaint filed by the A.P.P.-l stand dropped.Petition allowed. *******