JUDGMENT 1. - Both the petitions are directed against the order dated 10.10.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner rejecting the petitioners' prayer for discharging them for offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. Briefly stated that facts giving rise to the instant petitions are that the first respondent filed a complaint before the court of Special Judge, Essential Commodities Cases, Bikaner alleging therein that on 14.7.98 he purchased the milk pouches from the accused persons. The milk article was not marked as per the criteria laid down in the Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1992). 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that at the first instance the complainant had no right to file a private complaint. It is also submitted that the provisions of Paragraph 26 of the Order of 1992 are not attracted in the instant case. It has further been submitted that as required by Clause 49 of the Order of 1992 no permission has been obtained by the concerned registering authority. 4. The Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act having formed the opinion that for maintaining and increasing supply of liquid milk of desired quality in the interests of the general public, it is necessary to provide for regulating the production, supply and distribution of milk and milk products framed the rules in name of Milk and Milk Product Order, 1992. Section 26 provides for requirement of certification, packing, marking and labelling. Section 29 provides for previous sanction for prosecution. Section 29 is extracted as follows:- 29. In the case of any contravention of any of the provisions of this Order by the holder of registration certificate or any other person, the concerned Registering Authority shall be empowered to initiate suitable action against the holder of registration certificate or any other person, as the case may be. 5. In the instant case no timely sanction has been obtained for the prosecution from the Registering Authority. It may further be notice that a prosecution can be filed only by the persons referred in Section 28, which reads as follows: 28. 5. In the instant case no timely sanction has been obtained for the prosecution from the Registering Authority. It may further be notice that a prosecution can be filed only by the persons referred in Section 28, which reads as follows: 28. Prosecution: Any person,- (a) handling of processing or controlling or manufacturing milk or any milk product without obtaining a registration certificate as required under this Order, or (b) continuing to manufacture or process or handle or pack milk of milk product after suspension or revocation or expiry of registration certificate issued, or (c) handling, processing, manufacturing, controlling or packing milk or milk product in contravention of the provisions of this Order or of the terms and conditions of the registration certificate, or (d) producing any item in excess of the quantity specified for that item in the registration certificate, or (e) making any manufacturing facility in contravention of the provisions of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5, shall, in addition to suspension, revocation, or cancellation of his registration certificate, be liable to prosecution for the contravention of the provisions of this Order. 6. The respondent complainant does not fall in any of the categories referred in Section 28. 7. This Court in Narendrapal Kotadia v. State, 2004(1) Cr.L.R. 589 following the decision of the Apex Court in P.Sirajuddin etc. v. The State of Madras etc., AIR 1971 SC 520 , cautioned that the courts of magistrate should be extremely careful in a case where complaint is filed by a private party complaining of an act of a public servant in discharge of his duty. Repeatedly caution has been given that court must ensure discouragement of fraudulent, doubtful and impolitic prosecution at the instance of the vindictive or jealous private complainant. In view of the aforesaid the prosecution against the petitioners could not be sustainable. 8. Consequently, both the petitions are allowed. The order of the learned Chief Magistrate, Bikaner dated 10.10.2003 framing charge against the petitioners for offences under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is quashed and set aside.Petition allowed. *******