JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court has been directed against the order dated 11.11.1997 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC /ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta thereby dismissing the revision petition against the order dated 20.4.1995 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur.in criminal Case No. 153/95 (123/95) whereby on filing of criminal complaint by the Food Inspector, Ladnu, cognizance of an offence under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been taken against one Radhe Shyam and the present petitioner Ramavtar. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. With the consent of both the parties, this petition is disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that Mr. S.K. Singhal, Food Inspector, Nagaur inspected the shop of M/s. Ramavtar Kamal Kishore located at village Thanwla on 29.9.1992 at 2.00 p.m. whereat Radheshyam was present and was Incharge of the business being transacted including the food stuffs. A sample of Suji, on payment of Rs. 3.00/- per kilogram was obtained and was divided into three equal portions and each portion were put into three glass bottles. One portion of sample was, so taken sent to the Food Laboratory and that was found to be adulterated and hence, after obtaining sanction for prosecution from the Medical & Health Officer, Nagaur, a complaint under section 7/16 of P.F.A. Act was filed by the Food Inspector in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur. Here it may be mentioned that in the array of accused persons, first name is that of "M/s. Ramavatar Kamal Kishore" while second is "Radheshyam" and both have been said to be Maheshwaries by caste and residents of village Thanwla, Distt. Nagaur. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on filing of complaint vide order dated 22.4.1994 proceeded to take cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the present petitioner Ramavtar as well as his brother Radheshyam and they were ordered to be summoned by summons and, being aggrieved, Ramavtar preferred a criminal revision petition which was, lastly, decided by Revisional Court and hence this petition. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and rightly too, submitted that shop and premises whereat Radheshyam was found to be carrying on business in food stuffs including 'Suji' etc., was being run in the name and under the style of M/s. Ramavtar Kamal Kishore as is borne out of checking memo. However, Radheshyam, who was incharge of business was found in the shop and trading in the commodities including the food stuffs. It was he who had sold the sample of food stuffs to the Food Inspector. Presently, there is no challenge from the side of Radheshyam. However, main grievance of present petitioner is that he is carrying on business independently at Ahmedabad and he had had no connection with either the business/trade being transacted at the village Thanwla by Radheshyam nor was he a partner in the business of said firm and, therefore, he was in no manner connected with the firm and, therefore, he was not either directly, or vicariously liable for the acts alleged against and attributed to Radheshyam or the firm and, therefore, his submission is that neither Ramavtar was named as accused-petitioner in the checking memo nor did the Chief Medical & Health Officer sanctioned prosecution against the accused petitioner and besides name of petitioner alongwith his parentage is described in place of accused No. 1 in the complaint itself and, instead, as also borne out of the order of sanction as well as original complaint itself, accused No. 1 is none but the said firm styled as "Ramavatar Kamal Kishore" whereas accused-petitioner Ramavtar is son of Gulab chand and, therefore, his identity could not have been described by the name "Ramavtar Kamal Kishore" and, accordingly, his further submission is that the lower Court was mistaken to have over looked all these documents and instead to have straightway, without an iota of evidence in support thereof, showing that accused-petitioner was also one of the offenders 'liable to be prosecuted for the alleged offence. Wrongly, took cognizance of accused-petitioner, even in his personarcapacity as an informant and, therefore, the impugned order being illegal and against the evidence on record is, patently perverse occasioning a failure of justing warranting its being set aside. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor could not lend his support to the validity and legality of impugned order. 6. At the outset, suffice it to mention that Mr. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor could not lend his support to the validity and legality of impugned order. 6. At the outset, suffice it to mention that Mr. Singhal, Food Inspector, inspected the premises of M/s. Ramavtar Kamal Kishore of village Thanwala whereat only Radheshyam was present and was Incharge of the business being transacted. There is no deed of partnership showing that the present petitioner though not disputed to be brother of Radheshyam, but is alleged to be carrying on his business independently at Ahmedabad, was also either present at the premises or that he was one of the partners of the said firm. Presently, there is absolutely no evidence or ground to believe that present petitioner was a partner in the firm and, much less, he was also either directly or indirectly participating in the business or trade of the firm. Besides, the omission of this fact in the checking memo itself, order of sanction accorded by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Nagaur itself, shows that on consideration of relevant material warranting prosecution of the accused Radheshyam who had sold the sample of Suji found to be adulterated to the Food Inspector against payment and the firm of which either as a partner or a sole proprietor or its agent or custodian and controller of the same, besides him, the firm was also liable to be tried according to law and consequently, the sanction so accorded does not speak of any warrant for according sanction for prosecution of Ramavtar, petitioner independent of the firm and, therefore, the Food Inspector appears to have failed to describe the name of firm itself correctly as distinguished from Ramavtar, accused-petitioner himself in place of accused No. 1 in the array of accused persons as are mentioned in the complaint itself and the learned Magistrate also falling into an error failed to appreciate this anomaly and instead straight way took cognizance of the said offence against Radheshyam as well as Ramavtar in his individual capacity whereas Ramavtar S/o Gulab Chand was not arrayed as accused person in the array of accused in the complaint itself. There is no other material to show that Ramavtar, petitioner as an individual was ever sought to be prosecuted and sanction therefor was also accorded and he was at all arrayed in the name of accused persons in the complaint itself. There is no other material to show that Ramavtar, petitioner as an individual was ever sought to be prosecuted and sanction therefor was also accorded and he was at all arrayed in the name of accused persons in the complaint itself. This mistake appears to have crept in because of misreading and non-application of mind to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and resultantly when checking memo and other connected material in connection with order of sanction as well as complaint are considered conjointly and properly, it only prescribes that firm M/s. Ramavtar Kamal Kishore as well as Radheshyam son of Gulab Chand alone were arrayed as accused persons in the complaint and they were alone sought to be prosecuted and the learned trial Magistrate could have been justified to take cognizance against only these two persons including the firm itself whereas the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without application of mind took cognizance against Ramavtar son of Gulab Chand who has been ordered to be summoned and as a result, impugned order dated 20.4.1995 whereby cognizance of said offence has been taken against the petitioner, is illegal and the same is vitiated and the order of cognizance warrants its being set aside, failing which the same would result in menifest injustice and occasioning a failure of justice. 7. Resultantly, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 20.4.1995 whereby cognizance of said offence has been taken against the present petitioner, is hereby set aside and, instead, the learned trial Magistrate is directed to reconsider the fact of taking cognizance against the firm itself and, thereafter to find out as to who are the partners of the firm in case it is a partnership firm and in case it is a sole proprietor-ship firm to find out its sole proprietor and to proceed to issue summonson behalf of firm in such capacity for facing trial alongwith accused Radheshyam and not otherwise. 8. Accordingly, this petition being well merited is hereby accepted in part and the impugned order of taking cognizance against Ramavtar only is set aside resulting in acceptance of this petition in part; meaning thereby that order of cognizance against Radheshyam accused shall remain intact and the Court shall have to reconsider the fact of taking cognizance against the firm M/s. Ramavtar Kamal Kishore in the aforesaid terms, if so warranted, and to proceed further. According, this petition alongwith stay petition stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******