JUDGMENT R. K. PATRA, J. — Prayer was made by one Puranmal Choud¬hury, as the nominee of the petitioner, to the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Cuttack to send the sample of the seized Mustard oil to the Central Food Laboratory for examination under the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the rules made thereunder. By order dated 12.1.1999, the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer because he doubted the authenticity of the nomination. Being felt aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order and to direct to send the seized mustard oil for re-testing by the Public Analyst, Orissa. 2. Petitioner’s case briefly stated is that it is a part¬nership firm having crude mustard oil manufacturing unit in the State of Rajasthan. As the consignor it had booked a tanker containing unrefined mustard oil 07.89.15 quintals in favour of M/s. J.S. Oil Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. at Janla in the district of Khurda. It was clearly mentioned in all the documents including the cash-memo accompanying the tanker that the mustard oil was unrefined. On 8.9.1998 the tanker was seized by the Food Inspec¬tor of Cuttack Municipal Corporation near Gopalpur and after collecting the sample of the unrefined mustard oil, he sent the same to the Public Analyst, Orissa, for analysis. Al¬though the tanker contained unrefined mustard oil, which was also evident from the different documents accompanying the tanker, the Food Inspector described the sample as mustard oil without mentioning that the same was unrefined and sent it to the Public Analyst for analysis. Necessarily the Public Analyst on examina¬tion of the sample reported that it did not conform to the food standard. Had the Food Inspector noted that the sample was unre¬fined mustard oil, the result arrived at by the Public Analyst would have been different. After receipt of the report from the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector made an application under Section 11 (5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Sadar Cuttack, praying for destruc¬tion of the seized mustard oil. The said application was regis¬tered as Misc. Case No. 174 of 1998. After coming to know about the seizure and filing of the aforesaid misc. The said application was regis¬tered as Misc. Case No. 174 of 1998. After coming to know about the seizure and filing of the aforesaid misc. case, the petition¬er executed a power-of-attorney in favour of Rajbir Singh and in¬structed to file necessary application in the Court of S.D.J.M. with a prayer to send the sample to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis for the purpose of Section 11 (5)(iv) of the Act. At the time of execution of the power-of-attorney the nominee of the petitioner firm was absent for which the petitioner had executed a power-of-attorney in favour of Rajbir Singh who was in charge of the affairs of the petitioner. On 28.11.1998, the learned Magistrate accepted the prayer and directed the Food Inspector to produce the sample for sending the same to the Central Food Laboratory. On the next day, the Food Inspector filed an applica¬tion to give him a fresh opportunity to object to the application made on behalf of the petitioner. The prayer made by the Food Inspector was allowed. In the mean time, to expedite the matter, the petitioner’s nominee filed an application praying to send the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. Upon hearing the counsel for parties, the learned Magistrate rejected the said prayer by the impugned order dated 12.1.1999 suspecting the authenticity of the nomination. 3. Shri Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there was absolutely no ground to doubt the authenticity of the nomination and the learned Magistrate failed to read and appreciate the contents of the nomination. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for parties, I am of the opinion that the contention of Shri Lal has merit. On perusal of Annexure-3, i.e., the letter dated 27.11.1990 as well as the nomination form, it would appear that the petitioner in the resolution dated 1.11.1990 nominated Puranmal Choudhury to be in-charge of and responsible to the petitioner Company for the conduct of its business and authorised him to exercise all such power and take steps as may be necessary or expedient to prevent commission of any offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Puranmal Choudhury accepted the said nomination pursuant to Section 17 (2) of the Act and Rule 12 B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The local health authority of Rajasthan accepted the nomination on 15.12.1990. Puranmal Choudhury accepted the said nomination pursuant to Section 17 (2) of the Act and Rule 12 B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The local health authority of Rajasthan accepted the nomination on 15.12.1990. The fact of above nomination dated 1.11.1990 was informed to all concerned by the petitioner in its letter dated 27.11.1990 (Annexure-3). In the said letter it was clearly men¬tioned that in the meeting held on 1.11.1990 at Calcutta Office, Puranmal Choudhury was nominated as Supervision Manager and would be responsible to the firm for the conduct of business and was authorised to take all such steps as was necessary or expedient to prevent commission of any offence by the petitioner. 5. The learned Magistrate failed to take note of the fact that Puranmal Choudhury was nominated on 1.11.1990. Without taking note of that and by misreading the letter dated 27.11.1990, he erroneously concluded that how could the fact of nomination be intimated to the local health authority in Rajash¬tan in advance when actually the nomination was made later. The learned Magistrate lost sight of the endorsement in form VIII (Nomination of persons by Companies) that the local health au¬thority acknowledged the receipt of the nomination on 15.12.1990. The fact that Puranmal Choudhury was nominated on 1.11.1990 was made known by the petitioner in his letter dated 27.11.1990. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the learned Magistrate acted illegally in exercise of jurisdiction in not acceding to the prayer made by the nominee of the petitioner to send the sample of mustard oil to the appropriate authority for re-testing. In the result, the impugned order dated 12.1.1999 passed by the S.D.J.M. (Sadar) Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 174 of 1998 is hereby quashed. I may state that the cash-memo (Annexure-1) contains en¬dorsement that the mustard oil was ‘unrefined’. It is therefore, necessary in the interest of justice that the sample taken from the tanker should be considered as ‘unrefined’ and re-testing may be done accordingly. The learned Magistrate is directed to take necessary steps in this regard as prayed by the nominee of the petitioner. This application is accordingly allowed. L.C.R. may be sent back forthwith. Application allowed.