ORDER : 1. Since these two criminal appeals involve a common question of law they are disposed of by this common judgment. The respondents in these two appeals were accused of having committed offences punishable under Section 7 read with 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In the case of the respondent in Criminal Appeal No.420 of 1997 the food article involved is mustared oil and in the case of the respondent in Criminal Appeal No.421 of 1997 the food article involved is moong dal. It is the case of the appellant herein that these two food articles were found adulterated when inspected by the concerned authorities and on being sent to the Public Analyst it was found to be so adulterated. On the basis of the said report as required under Section 20 of the said Act the Chief Health Officer of the Calcutta Municipality gave consent for prosecution. Before the Magistrate the respondents disputed the correctness of the analyst report and prayed for the sample being analysed by the Central Food Laboratory which confirmed the adulteration but in regard to the contents and extent of adulteration of the food articles concerned there was some variation from the public analysts in the report of the Central Food Laboratory. Taking advantage of this variation the respondents moved an application for discharge on the ground that since the prosecution was placing reliance on the report of the Central Food Laboratory a consent under Section 20 of the Act ought to have been obtained by the Municipality not based on the public analyst report but on the report of the Central Laboratory. The learned Magistrate rejected the said prayer of the respondents consequent to which they preferred petitions under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Revision Nos. 1497 of 1995 and 1215 of 1991. By impugned judgment the High Court of Calcutta following a judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings pending before the trial court. 2. 1497 of 1995 and 1215 of 1991. By impugned judgment the High Court of Calcutta following a judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings pending before the trial court. 2. In these appeals on behalf on behalf of the appellant it is contended that the view taken by the Himachal Pradesh High Court has since been held to be an erroneous view by this Court in the case of Food Inspector, Ernakulam and another v. P.S. Sreenivasa Shenoy, 2000 (6) SCC 348 , therefore, the impugned judgment has to be reversed. 3. We have perused the above judgment of this Court and we notice in the said case this Court approving the view of the Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Prahladbhai Ambalal, 1984 (2) FAC 27 , held that once a consent to prosecute is given by a competent authority such institution of prosecution should be regarded as if it is by that authority and no further question as regards the validity of written consent as a result of subsequent event would arise in such a case where cognizance of offence is taken by the Court. From the above, it is clear that once a prosecution is properly instituted based on the report of a Public Analyst merely because at a subsequent stage another report of another analyst is relied upon would not make the institution of prosecution in any manner illegal. In the instant case when the cognizance of the complaint was taken by the Magistrate the same was done with the consent of the competent authority under Section 20 of the Act based on the report of a competent analyst, therefore, we are of the view that the High Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that when a subsequent report is relied upon by the prosecution the original consent becomes incorrect in law. 4. For the reasons above mentioned these appeals succeed and the impugned order of the court below is set aside. The matter now will stand remitted to the trial court to proceed in accordance with law.