JUDGMENT 1. - These are two separate petitions u/Section 482, Cr.P.C. by the State of Rajasthan against the same order dated 5.3.90 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2 Bharatpur, in criminal revision No. 49/89, set aside the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 11.4.89 in Criminal complaint case No. 62/89 State v. Brij Gopal & Ors. taking cognizance of the offence u/Section 7 r/w. Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act).The relevant facts are these : Non-petitioner, Brij Gopal Khandelwal is the manufacturer of mustard oil Agmark engine brand under the business name of M/s. Sh. Hari Industries (Hari Oil Mills), Bharatpur. On August 7,1987 the Food Inspector purchased sample mustard oil from the non-petitioner for analysis. On analysis, the Public Analyst reported on 15.9.87 that the sample oil was adulterated due to its containing "highly harmful Argemone". After obtaining the written consent of the prescribed authority u/Section 20 of the Act on 21.9.87 the Food Inspector filed a complaint on 28.9.87 against non-petitioner Brij Gopal Khandelwal and M/s. Sh. Hari Industries (Hari Oil Mills), Bharatpur in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence u/Section 7/16 read with Section 2(1) (h) of the Act on that very date and summoned the non-petitioner as accused in the case. On 3.10.87 the non-petitioner applied u/Section 13(2) and required the Court to call for the certificate from the Director, Central Food Laboratory on the point of adulteration of the oil. The learned C.J.M. made his order in that behalf on 14.12.87 but on 16.12.87 the non-petitioner made a request to the Trial Court to send the third sample to the Director as the seals on the second sample were not intact. The Trial Court accepted the request and made order in that respect on 30.4.88. Thereupon the non-petitioners challenged the two orders of the Trial Court dated 14.12.87 and 30.4.88 before this Court. By its order dated 23.5.88 this Court directed the Trial Court to send the sample of non-petitioner's choice for analysis by the Director, F.S.L. In compliance of the directions of this Court the Trial Court sent the desired sample to the Director on 9.6.88. By its order dated 23.5.88 this Court directed the Trial Court to send the sample of non-petitioner's choice for analysis by the Director, F.S.L. In compliance of the directions of this Court the Trial Court sent the desired sample to the Director on 9.6.88. In his certificate dated 19.7.88 the Director certified the sample oil to be adulterated due to its non-conforming the prescribed standard insofar as saponification value and bellier Turbidity Temperature tests were concerned. On receipt of Director's certificate the non-petitioners claimed discharge u/Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. On 12.1.89 the Trial Court discharged the non-petitioners with the following observations : xx xx xxNo revision/appeal was preferred by the State against the above order of the Trial Court. After obtaining modified written convent of the prescribed Authority on 5.4.89 the Food Inspector again filed a complaint u /Section 7/16 of the Act against the non-petitioners and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same on 11.4.89 and summoned the non-petitioners as accused. Brij Gopal, non-petitioner challenged the order of the Magistrate dated 11.4.89 by filing two separate revision petitions u/Section 397, Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, one on 26.4.89 and the other on 27.4.89, in commonly worded language but claiming the same relief. By his impugned order dated 5.3.90 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur accepted the petitions on the ground that the second complaint was not maintainable on the basis of the modified sanction u/Section 20 of the Act.Mr. S.R. Bajwa, the learned Senior Counsel for the non-petitioners tried to raise several objections against Mr. Rathore, the learned Deputy Government Advocate, contention that the impugned order was manifestly bad in law and on facts. In main it was submitted by Mr. Bajwa that the sanction u/Section 20 was accorded by the prescribed Authority for the second time without application of mind but he was fair enough to agree with this Court that in view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court in the case of Dhian Singh v. Municipal Board, Saharanpur, 1973 F.A.C. 404 , followed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 24 of 1992 Nand Kishore v. State of Rajasthan application of mind to the facts of the case by the prescribed Authority was not necessary while granting written consent u/Section 20 of the Act for prosecution of an offender under the Act. Mr. Mr. Rajwa, however, submitted that since the earlier order dated 11.4.89, discharging the non-petitioners was not challenged by the petitioner before higher authorities by way of any revision or appeal, the same operated as res judicata u/Section 300, Cr.P.C. between the parties and the second complaint on same facts and for same offence was not maintainable. The argument is misconceived for the obvious reason that on the basis of the earlier complaint the non- petitioners were neither tried for, nor convicted or acquitted of the offence complained of. That apart the earlier complaint was dismissed subject to petitioners right to file a fresh one after obtaining the required sanction u/Section 20 of the Act. That order of the learned Magistrate may be bad in law as no modified written consent was required after the receipt of the certificate of Director, certifying the sample to be adulterated, may be for reasons other than those opined by the Public Analyst, but that hardly attract the provisions of Section 300, Cr.P.C. to this case. The reliance by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on that provision was totally misplaced.It was next urged by Mr. Bajwa that in the second complaint the non-petitioners would not be able to exercise their right u/Section 13(2) inasmuch as all the three samples, prepared by the Food Inspector with the sample oil purchased from the non-petitioners, have already been utilised and exhausted in conducting analysis by the Public Analyst and the Director, C.F.L. Again, the argument advanced is misconceived. By the second complaint, which is on the same facts and for the same offence between the same parties and before the same competent Court, the earlier complaint with all material thereupon, practically, stands revived and restored for the purposes of the rights and liabilities of the parties available from the material on the record of the earlier complaint. The non-petitioners have already exercised their right u/Section 13(2) in respect to the offence, they have been charged with, and all rights, benefits, concessions ensuring in their favour from any material on the record of the earlier complaint would be available to them. Thus there is absolutely no likelihood of their right being frustrated and /or proceedings of the second complaint as amounting to abuse of the process of Court or in any way to miscarriage of justice. Thus there is absolutely no likelihood of their right being frustrated and /or proceedings of the second complaint as amounting to abuse of the process of Court or in any way to miscarriage of justice. In fact the impugned order, being manifestly erroneous and hence not sustainable in law, perpetuates injustice and promotes abuse of the process of law. In view of the above discussion the impugned order dated 5.3.90 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in this case is set aside and the petitions allowed. The complaint, dismissed by that order, shall stand revived and restored before the Trial Court and shall be disposed of by it according to law. The earlier complaint alongwith all the material on the record thereof, including the report of the Public Analyst and the certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, shall be tagged with the record of the second complaint and all the material thereupon shall be utilised by the parties for their benefits and/or to the disadvantage of their adversaries. The parties shall put in appearance on 2.4.97 before the Trial Court i.e. the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur. Delay caused in the trial is attributed to the accused non-petitioners.Petition allowed. *******