JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition under section. 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 24.3.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in criminal case No. 640/2003 whereby the trial Court framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under sections 420, 272 Indian Penal Code and under sections 78 & 79 of the Trade and Mercantile Marks Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). Aggrieved by the order framing charges, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Perused the order impugned. I have carefully gone through the challan papers. 3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on 9.7.2003, Jai Singh Daiya, S.H.O., Police Station, Hanumangarh received a secret information that the petitioner is selling adulterated ghee. The S.H.O. along with patrolling party and two Motbirs searched the premises of the petitioner and found the petitioner packing adulterated ghee in tins having trade mark "Saras" manufactured by Ganganagar Milk Co-operative Dairy Federation. On being analyzed by Public Health Laboratory, Sri Ganaganagar, the samples marked "A" "I" were found to he adulterated under clause (a) of sub-section (ia) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. These samples did not conform to the prescribed standard as provided in item No. A-11.02.21 of Appendix "B" of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and the fat in these two samples is not derived from milk, curd, cream or from Deshi cooking butter. However sample marked "E" conformed to the prescribed standard. 4. After usual investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner for the offences under sections 420, 272 Indian Penal Code and Sections 78 & 79 of the Act as also Section 63 of Copy Right Act. However, on hearing the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that no offence under section 63 of the Copy Right Act is made out and accordingly, discharged the petitioner from the offence under section 63 of the Copy Right Act. However, charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences under sections 420 & 272 Indian Penal Code as also Sections 78 & 79 of the Act. 5. However, charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences under sections 420 & 272 Indian Penal Code as also Sections 78 & 79 of the Act. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that prima facie no offence under sections 420 & 272 Indian Penal Code is made out. However learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the order framing the charge for the offences under sections 78 & 79 of the Act. 6. Section 272 Indian Penal Code provides that whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the articles alleged to have been seized by the police cannot be said to be noxious and, therefore, provisions of Section 272 Indian Penal Code can only be attracted if the seized food article is found to be noxious. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on decisions of Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1924 Allahabad 214 (1), Ram Dayal & Ors. v. King Emperor, Lahore High Court reported in AIR 1926 Lahore 49, Dhawa v. Emperor and Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in IV 1987 (2) Crimes 278, Purshotam Dass & Anr. v. The State of Haryana . 8. In Ram Dayal & Ors. v. King Emperor (supra), the Allahabad High Court held that there was no direct evidence that the accused intended to sell the mixture although this might be inferred from the circumstance that they do sell ghee. The accused therein ere convicted for the offence under section 272 Indian Penal Code for adulterating an article of food so as to make such article noxious as food intending to sell it as food or knowing it to be likely that it will be sold as such. The accused therein ere convicted for the offence under section 272 Indian Penal Code for adulterating an article of food so as to make such article noxious as food intending to sell it as food or knowing it to be likely that it will be sold as such. The Court held that it is true that the mixing of pig's fat with ghee and selling the mixture would be noxious to the religious and social feeling of both Hindus and Mohammedans but that such an act would not come within the meaning of the expression "noxious as food" which occurs in Section 272 Indian Penal Code. That expression obviously means unwholesome as food or injurious to health and not repugnant to one's feelings. The word "noxious" had it stood by itself, might have had a wider meaning, but what the Court had considered is the expression "noxious as food" and not merely "noxious". In that case, the accused had sold or attempted to sell it on the presence that it was pure ghee they would have been guilty of quite a different offence, that is to say of cheating or attempt to cheat. 9. In Dhawa v. Emperor (supra), the Lahore High Court held that it is true that the accused exposed for sale milk adulterated with water, but there is no evidence on the record that the mixture was noxious or injurious as food or drink. Milk is not rendered noxious by being mixed' with water, indeed the mixture of milk and water is often used as drink in the, summer. 10. In Purshotam Das & Anr. v. The State of Haryana (supra), the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where accused is charged for manufacturing spurious soda water but the contents of the bottles were never chemically tested then no prima facie case is made out under section 272/273 1PC and the charge is liable to be quashed. However, so far as charge under section 420 Indian Penal Code is concerned, this was founded upon the allegation supported by the statements of some witnesses that they purchased Thumps Up and Campa Cola about 10/15 days earlier, which when they drank, they discovered, was some other drink. However, so far as charge under section 420 Indian Penal Code is concerned, this was founded upon the allegation supported by the statements of some witnesses that they purchased Thumps Up and Campa Cola about 10/15 days earlier, which when they drank, they discovered, was some other drink. Again it was pertinent to note that the contents of these bottles were never chemically tested nor is it any part of the allegation that the bottles in which these drinks were sold, were other than what they purported to be. This being so, no charge under section 420 [PC is even prima facie made out. 11. In the instant case, from the statement of witnesses Jela Singh and Hari Ram, prima facie there is evidence that these two witnesses purchased the ghee knowing it to be Saras ghee and when they used, they discovered that the ghee purchased from the petitioner was not that of Saras product being adulterated other than that what they purported to be. In this view of the matter, I am of considered view that prima facie offence under section 420 Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. There is also an evidence that the petitioner was found packing the adulterated ghee in a tin of having brand "Saras Ghee" and as such there is prima facie evidence to presume that the petitioner committed offence under sections 78 & 79 of the Act. The attract Section 272 Indian Penal Code, prima facie, it has to be shown that adulterated article of food is shown as to make such article noxious intending to sell it as food. The expression "noxious" has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However, the dictionary meaning of word "noxious" is "harmful" or injurious to health. There is no evidence that the adulterated ghee alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner while in the process of packing in the tin having trade mark "Saras" was harmful or injurious to human heath. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view there is no ground to presume that the petitioner committed offence punishable under section 272 Indian Penal Code. 12. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. Order framing charge against the petitioner under section 272 Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view there is no ground to presume that the petitioner committed offence punishable under section 272 Indian Penal Code. 12. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. Order framing charge against the petitioner under section 272 Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. However, the order framing charges against the petitioner for the offence under section 420 Indian Penal Code and Sections 78 & 79 of the Act is affirmed. Stay petition stands disposed of.Revision petition partly allowed. *******