This criminal revision is so preferred by the petitioner Glaxo India Ltd. (accused No.2) under section 482 CrPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution particularly being aggrieved by the order dated 4.3.94 passed in CR 1002 of 1992 by the learned SDJM, Hojai, Sankardebnagar by virtue of which after hearing the parties, the learned Court below rejected the prayer so made by the accused for discharging them rather directed framing charge under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Heard Mr. DK Bhattacharyya, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner accused and Mr. J. Singh, the learned PP Assam. 3. The short history of the case is that the Food Inspector, Hojai, Nagaon on 13.7.92 visited the premises of M/s Adhir Kumar Dey, grocery shop situated at Netaji Road and disclosing his identity, collected sample of 'Minit Milk' bearing Code and SI No.TD92/027 from Shri Adhir Kumar Dey, accused No.l, the proprietor of the said grocery shop and the said Minit Milk was so purchased by Shri Adhir Kumar Dey from Glaxo India Ltd, samples of which were so collected strictly in compliance with the provisions of the Act and the part of the sample in sealed cover was sent to the Public Analyst, Govt. of Assam for analysis under the provisions of Rule 17 of the Act and after the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst on 26.8.92 opining the same to the misbranded, sanction was obtained and the prosecution case was launched by filing prosecution report on the basis of which CR 1002/92 got registered and under section 204 CrPC, Shri Adhir Kumar Dey as accused No.l and the Glaxo India Ltd, Guwahati Shillong Road, Dispur as accused No.2 were summoned as to face the trial. It further transpires that the said Food Inspector Shri T. Das was also examined before charge and after that when a date was fixed up for hearing on the point of charge on behalf of the accused persons it was submitted that the accused persons rather be discharged as according to the accused persons no case is made out as to proceed against them under the Act though the learned Court below after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that there are sufficient materials as to proceed against them and hence directed framing of charge as detailed above against the accused persons, one of them figuring here as petitioner, assigning reasons as detailed in the impugned order against which this criminal revision is filed. 4. Mr. DK Bhattacharyya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in short, has submitted on behalf of the Glaxo India Ltd that so far as the petitioner is being arraigned alongwith Shri Adhir Kumar Dey on the ground that the said Minit Milk was so purchased from the said company, it is pointed out that as a matter of fact the perusal of the materials so available it will transpire that no case is made out as to proceed against the present petitioner, the learned Court below instead of fixing a date for framing charge could have rather discharge the accused person. The point so raised for setting aside the impugned order are that proper sanction for prosecution was not obtained from a competent authority; that when as per the invoice so produced by Shri Adhir Kumar Dey the batch No. of the said Minit Milk was 148, some other packet was sent for analysis which will be apparent by a perusal of the report of the Analyst because according to Mr. Bhattacharyya, the learned counsel the Analyst's report speaks of a packet so sent to him and received by him having Lot No. 183 without in any way having the reference of Batch No. 148 and on this ground alone the impugned order is fit to be set aside and that the warranty was given by the Glaxo India Ltd in connection with Batch No.148 of Minit Milk and if Minit Milk having Code No.183 being found misbranded, it does not come within the warranty of the company-petitioner and hence the company is in no way liable to be prosecuted. In support of his this contention it is also pointed out that Batch No./Code No/Lot-No. are same as defined under Rule 32 (e) of the Prevention of Adulteration Rules, 1974. Thus this discrepancy is such as to give fatal blow to the prosecution case because it can very well be inferred that the sample so seized was not sent for analysis. Furthermore, by challenging the report of the Analyst it is.further pointed out by referring to section 2 (ix) of the Act that 'misbranded' is defined therein which can be of so many types and when finding the Minit Milk sample to be misbranded it was incumbent on the part of the Analyst as also to specify the category by which the sample was found by him to be misbranded. The non-indication of the same in his report according to the learned counsel for the petitioner vitiates the proceeding. 5. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioner that in the back ground of the facts detailed above the continuance of the proceeding in the present case by framing charge and proceeding with the trial will be nothing but the abuse of the process of the Court and to ensure justice thus it is a fit case as to consider the prayer for setting aside the impugned order and discharging the accused petitioner. In support of his this contention Mr. DK Bhattacharyya has banked upon some of the reported cases also and they are - (1972) 3 SCC 282 (Century Spinning ., and Manufacturing Co Ltd & others vs. State of Maharastra) and has submitted that if the charge directed to be framed is found based on no ground on the very face of the record in such circumstances the accused is entitled for discharge. The second case so cited is (1976) 3 SCC 736 (Smti Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Korijalgi & others) banking on which it is pointed out that Magistrate is expected before proceeding with the criminal proceeding as to satisfy himself as to whether a prima facie material exists to frame charge and in the instant case since the ingredients of the offence are not met with and because of this infirmity so occurring after the receipt of the Analyst's report showing a different Code No. which is not in consonance with the Batch No. indicated in the invoice, there is remote possibility of the accused persons being found guilty to be ultimately convicted and thus any exercise as to proceed with the matter will be nothing but the abuse of the process of the Court. It is further pointed out that if there is insufficiency of evidence available on record this Court under section 482 CrPC can very well quash the proceeding and in support of his this contention the reported case so cited in (1977) 2 SCC 699 para 7 (State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy & others). Lastly, by referring to AIR 1971 Assam 146 (Supresh Chandra Das vs. State of Meghalaya) it is pointed out that a trial also cannot be allowed to continue on hypothetical anticipatory evidence expected to come in course of trial. Squarely on these grounds hence the prayer is that the impugned order be set aside, the accused person be thus discharged and CR 1002/92 proceeding be quashed. 6. Mr. J. Singh, the learned Public Prosecutor, Assam, on the other hand has submitted that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order. The power of quashing the criminal proceeding should be exercised, as also held by the Apex Court in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (State of Haryana & others vs. Bhajanlal & others) very sparingly with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The power of quashing the criminal proceeding should be exercised, as also held by the Apex Court in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (State of Haryana & others vs. Bhajanlal & others) very sparingly with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. This Court would thus also not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the prosecution report, the learned Court below in the instant case it is pointed out had found prima facie materials as to proceed with the matter and therefore necessary orders were passed under section 204 CrPC and the learned Court below was satisfied that on the basis of the materials so available on no account it can be said that there was absolutely no case or the ingredients of the offence was not met with to the allegations were patently absurd/inherently improbable so that no prudent person can take congizance of the offence. It is pointed out that by looking into the record it will transpire that the seizure of the Minit Milk packets was specifically shown by the Food Inspector giving Code and SI Nos.TD-92/027 which even specifically finds place in the report of the Analyst and therefore this confusion raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to the difference in the batch No. or Code No. was a matter to be decided in course of the proceeding when the evidence is adduced from both the sides and therefore the learned Court below was perfectly justified in directing framing of the charge for the present petitioner Glaxo India Ltd as per the prosecution case selling the misbranded stuff in the hands of the accused No; 1 making out a prima facie case for criminal proceeding with the Glaxo India Ltd alongwith the proprietor of the grocery shop under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In support of his this contention that no interference is required with the impugned order on behalf of the State much reliance is placed on the reported case 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335 (supra). In support of his this contention that no interference is required with the impugned order on behalf of the State much reliance is placed on the reported case 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335 (supra). Furthermore it is pointed out that since the article so seized having Code and SI Nos TD-92/027 was under warranty this petitioner is liable for prosecution and that the prosecution is launched after obtaining due sanction which was accorded when the sanctioning authority had applied its mind as indicated in the letter of sanction the sanctioning authority being authorised to accord sanction under Govt. notification No. HLA 327/74/94 dated 2.2.97 under section 20 of the Act. Casually it is also mentioned by Mr. J. Singh the learned PP that the provisions of section 7 with that of 16 and 14A of the Act make the accused/petitioner and his co-associate accused No.l liable for prosecution which has rightly been launched and by passing the impugned order the learned Court below was within its limit and perfectly justified as to fix up date for framing charge after rejecting the petitioner's prayer for discharge. By raising a question, it is submitted by the Public Prosecutor Mr. J. Singh that if the present petitioner was no satisfied with the Analysts report and when an opportunity was being given to the petitioner by issuing notice to both the accused persons to challenge the Analyst's report under the provisions of the Act as incorporated under section 13 (2) of the Act, the notice being marked as Annexure 10, why the petitioner did not opt as to get the matter referred to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta and furthermore the Analyst not reporting that in what way the said Minit Milk was found misbranded will on no account vitiate the whole proceeding making it a good case for discharge because the door was/is very much open as to explain the same when in course of proceeding the Analyst is to be produced as witness in which the petitioner will be having naturally a chance to cross-examine him. 7. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, taking into consideration the facts discussed above, also after going through the petition, Annexures, the report of the Public Analyst and the reported cases so cited on behalf of both the parties, I find that the argument so advanced on behalf of the State of Assam represented by learned PP in convincing. In the background of the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner has failed to make out a case warranting interference with the impugned order wherein there is a direction of the learned Court below as to frame charge and to proceed with the matter. All through it is found that there is reference of the Code and SI No. of the Minit Milk packed seized finding place in the prosecution report with that of the report so submitted by the Analyst with Code and SI No.TD- 92/027. There is reference of the notification by which the sanctioning authority was authorised to accord sanction and the invoice in question at the foot of which there is indication of the warranty given by the company. Consequently, finding no merit in this criminal revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. However, before parting with it is observed that any reference so casually made by this Court dealing with the documents in no way will prejudice the mind of the learned trial Court while proceeding with the matter in Courts of trial. 8. This criminal revision petition accordingly disposed of.