JUDGMENT : H.R. Shelat, J. This revision application is directed against the order dated 27th May 1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) Bagasara, in Criminal Case No. 500 of 1993 on his file whereby the opponent who is the accused in that case, came to be acquitted. 2. In order to appreciate the issues that arise for consideration in this application, few facts may be stated. Mr. R.N. Joshi, who is serving as Food Inspector for the Amreli region inspected the shop of the opponent and collected the sample of chili power for the purpose of analysis because he had the information that the opponent was not selling pure chili powder but adulterated one. Undergoing all relevant formalities the sample of the chili powder was taken, sealed, and then was sent to the laboratory for analysis. On receipt of the report of the analysis Mr. Joshi found that chili powder was not of a standard quality but adulterated one. He therefore prepared necessary papers, obtained the sanction and filed a complaint being Criminal Case No. 500 of 1993 in the court of the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) at Bagasara in Amreli District alleging that by keeping for sale and selling adulterated chili powder the opponent had committed the offences punishable under Section 7 & 16 of the Food Adulteration Act. After such complaint was presented & registered and undergoing the formalities of service of summons on the opponent etc. the evidence of Mr. R.N. Joshi was recorded wherein he stated that he had not taken the training for 90 days, but only for 45 days qua the sample to be taken and other formalities to be observed. In view of his such deposition on behalf of the opponent on 1st June 1995 an application Exh. 51 was filed and the ld. Judicial Magistrate was requested to discharge the opponent only on the ground that as per the requirement of law when Mr. R.N. Joshi, the Food Inspector was not qualified the proceedings were vitiated. Relying on certain decisions, the ld. Judicial Magistrate accepted the submissions made on behalf of the opponent, allowed the application Exh. 51 and discharged the opponent. It is against that order of discharge, the present revision application has been filed. 3. True that whenever a revision application is to be dealt with, as submitted by Mr. Malcon, ld. Relying on certain decisions, the ld. Judicial Magistrate accepted the submissions made on behalf of the opponent, allowed the application Exh. 51 and discharged the opponent. It is against that order of discharge, the present revision application has been filed. 3. True that whenever a revision application is to be dealt with, as submitted by Mr. Malcon, ld. advocate for the opponent, the jurisdiction of the court is limited, and even if on the questions of fact I am of differing opinion, than what the lower court has preferred to form out of two or many emerging from the materials on record I cannot interfere with the same, but I can interfere if it is found that the lower court has fallen into error of law, or the order passed is illegal, arbitrary, perverse, improper, incorrect, perfunctory or glaringly unreasonable, or there is a good cause to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law or irregularity of procedure or neglect of proper precaution, or it is found that there is patent injustice apparent on the face of the proceedings calling for prompt redressal. In this case, after perusing the impugned order with meticulous care and finicky details, I find that the learned Magistrate has fallen into error of law and to prevent miscarriage of justice arising out of misconception of law interference is necessary. 4. The learned Magistrate has discharged the accused only on the ground that Mr. R.N. Joshi, the Food Inspector who collected the sample and then undergoing necessary formalities sent it for analysis to the laboratory, was lacking necessary qualification which ordinarily the Food Inspector is required to possess. What is found by the learned Judicial Magistrate is that if the Food Inspector has not taken the training for at least 90 days and is falling short of the required qualifications, whatever has been done by such Inspector would be bad in the eye of law. In this case, Mr. Joshi, the Food Inspector had taken the training for 45 days. He had not taken full training of 90 days, and therefore he was not satisfying the required qualification and hence whatever he did was bad in law, and on that count the opponent was required to be discharged and accordingly he came to be discharged passing the impugned order. 5. He had not taken full training of 90 days, and therefore he was not satisfying the required qualification and hence whatever he did was bad in law, and on that count the opponent was required to be discharged and accordingly he came to be discharged passing the impugned order. 5. Whether the whole case can be thrown overboard if the Food Inspector does not possess required qualification, or possesses the qualification to a certain extent falling short, is the crucial question that arises for examination. A similar question arose before this Court in the case of Ashwin H. Acharya v. Ram Dugdhalaya & Others - 1986 G.L.H. 723 wherein considering all relevant provisions, it is held that when the Food Inspector initiates the prosecution with written authority of Municipal Commissioner, the same is valid and whether the Inspector is qualified or not is not a relevant question. Again similar question arose before the Apex Court in the case of Suresh H. Rajput etc. v. Bhartiben Pravinbhai Soni & Others - 1996 (1) P.F.A. Cases 1, wherein it is laid down that qualification of the Food Inspector cannot be challenged. What is material is whether the Food Inspector had taken the samples in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. If he has committed any contravention, what would be its effect on the prosecution is a matter to be considered, but his qualifications cannot be looked into when he lays the prosecution for adulteration of the articles of food under the Act. In view of such law made clear, the order passed by the learned Judge cannot be maintained being contrary to law. In this case, what is required to be examined is whether sample is taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder and whether any contravention of the Rule or law is committed affecting the merits of the prosecution and not the qualification of the Inspector. 6. Above referred two decisions were brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate but he dodged and brushed aside the decisions erratically without assigning logical reasons. He remained indifferent by simply saying not applicable. The ld. Judge has to bear in mind his duty to study the decisions cited with utmost care and cannot deal with the same cursorily or off the cuff, and cannot ignore lightly. He remained indifferent by simply saying not applicable. The ld. Judge has to bear in mind his duty to study the decisions cited with utmost care and cannot deal with the same cursorily or off the cuff, and cannot ignore lightly. How it is applicable or not applicable has to be discussed or distinguished may be in brief. It would be desultory and divagation on the part of the Judge if shows unconcern saying "not applicable". Both the decisions are applicable to the case on hand as the facts & issues being identical. Had the learned Magistrate been careful in study the parties would not have been put to hardship and much earlier the case would have been disposed of. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, therefore, this Revision Application is required to be allowed and is allowed accordingly. The impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, discharging the opponent, is hereby set aside and the Criminal Case No. 500 of 1993 is restored to the file of the Court of the JMFC at Bagasara. The learned Magistrate shall now proceed to hear and dispose of the matter in accordance with law affording reasonable opportunity to both the parties to submit their case. Rule accordingly made absolute. 8. The parties to appear before the lower court on 18th February 1998 at 11.00 A.M. Rule made absolute.