Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. Govind Prasad Agrawal the sole petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 398/91 is a wholesale dealer of common salt. Deep Chand Jain the sole petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 342 of 1991 is the Munshi of the firm M/s. Bharat Enterprises of which Govind Prasad Agrawal is the Proprietor. 2. On 27.6.1990 the Food Inspector Purnea took samples of salt from the premises of the firm and sent them for chemical analysis. On receipt of the analysis report he filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Kishanganj on 21.7.1990. In the complaint it was alleged that the salt being sold by the petitioners to retail shop keepers (who would sell it to the general public) was found to be adulterated as it did not have the adequate percentage of iodine for human consumption. A prayer was made in the complaint to initiate a proceeding against the petitioners under Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The allegation in the complaint was sought to be supported by copies of the reports of chemical analysis given by the Public Analyst, Bhagalpur which were enclosed with the complaint petition. 3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 6.8.1990 took cognizance of the offence under Sec. 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and summoned the petitioners to face their trial. The petitioners appeared before the Magistrate and filed a petition for their discharge. By order dated 25.3.1997 the learned Magistrate declined to pass any positive order on that petition and directed it to be kept on the record. At this stage the petitioners came to this Court for quashing the entire proceedings initiated against them. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners raised a simple point on the basis of which these two Criminal Revesions are fit to be allowed. 5. It is submitted that Sec. 8 of the Act defined Public Analyst with reference to such local area as may be assigned to them by the Central Government or the State Government. It is asserted to the revision petition that the Public Analyst, Bhagalpur was not assigned the local area of Kishanganj and, therefore, he had no authority or jurisdiction to give any analysis report in respect of a sample collected at Kishanganj. It is asserted to the revision petition that the Public Analyst, Bhagalpur was not assigned the local area of Kishanganj and, therefore, he had no authority or jurisdiction to give any analysis report in respect of a sample collected at Kishanganj. There is no denial of the factual assertion and no counter affidavit has been filed in this case on behalf of the State. 6. Under the circumstances I am left with no option but to accept the statement made on behalf of the petitioners that the Public Analyst, Bhagalpur had no authority or jurisdiction to give any report in respect of samples collected at Kishanganj. 7. That being the position, the report of chemical analysis of the samples of salt collected from the firms premises cannot be looked into and this renders the allegation completely unsupported by any evidence. The order taking cognizance and the proceedings pending pursuant thereto are, therefore, liable to be quashed. Those are accordingly quashed. 8. In the result, these two Criminal Revisions are allowed.