JUDGMENT :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners are original accused against whom, respondent No.2 - Food Inspector filed a complaint case (R.C.C. No.561/ 1994), for commission of offence punishable under Section 7(v) read with Rule 44(e) read with Section 16 and Section 7(i) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The complainant (respondent No.2) entered the witness box and deposed in support of the complaint. He was cross-examined. The petitioners objected framing of the charge. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, however, overruled their objections and proceeded to frame charge as per order dated 9.3.2005. A Revision Petition (Cri. Rev. No.30/2005) preferred by the petitioners came to be dismissed on August 31st. 2005 by impugned order of learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur. 3. The complainant/respondent No.2 asserted that he visited shop of the petitioners on 9th November, 1993. He purchased edible oil represented to be Safflower (Kardai) oil. The sample of purchased Safflower oil was collected in a dry empty and clean steel pot arid after following necessary procedure, he divided the sample in three parts. One of the sample was sent for analysis to office of the Public Analyst. The report of Public Analyst indicated that the sample contravened Rule 44(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules because it does not conform to the standards of Safflower oil for the reason that baudouin test was found to be positive. 4. Clinching question is whether charge could be framed on the basis of material placed on record. At this juncture, it is also necessary to examine provisions of Sections 244 and 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An accused may claim discharge under Section 245(1) of the Cr.P.C., if upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, no case has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction. The test, therefore, is to see whether the material on record, if considered as it is, would warrant conviction of the accused/petitioner. If the material is insufficient to warrant conviction, then, of course, the accused must be discharged. Needless to say, the complainant is required to place on record such material which would warrant the conviction, if there will be no rebuttal of the evidence. The discharge in case of Police investigation case stands on different footings. If the material is insufficient to warrant conviction, then, of course, the accused must be discharged. Needless to say, the complainant is required to place on record such material which would warrant the conviction, if there will be no rebuttal of the evidence. The discharge in case of Police investigation case stands on different footings. The claim for discharge in a private complaint case, however, is to be ordered when the material available from the evidence recorded under Section 245 is found to be insufficient to convict an accused The accused, if can demonstrate that in spite of his failure to rebut the material evidence tendered by the complainant, no charge can be levelled against him, then it will be mandatory to discharge him. For, the expression used in sub-clause (1) of Section 245 is "shall". 5. In the present case, nowhere the complainant stares that the oil sample was representative mixed with any other oil. Nor, the report of Public Analyst (Exh."A") shows that the Safflower oil was found to have been mixed with any other edible oil, origin of which was identified during the analysis. The infringement of Rule 44(e) can come into play only when the mixture of two or more edible oils, as an edible oil, is found to be of substandard quality. The proviso appended to Rule 44 reads as follows : "Provided further that in respect of clause (e) [a maximum tolerance limit of 15.0 red units] in 1cm cell on Lovibond scale is permitted when the oil is tested for Baudouin test without dilution, that is to say; by shaking vigorous by for 2 minutes. 5 ml of the sample with 5 ml of hydrochloric acid (specific gravity 1.19) and 0.3 ml of 2 per cent, alcoholic solution of furfural, and allowing to stand for 5 minutes;]" This proviso seems to have been overlooked by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge. The report of Public Analyst vaguely shows that the Baudouin test was positive. There is no data given in the said report nor the Public Analyst was called upon to enter the witness box as a witness, before the stage of framing charge. In a private complaint case of such nature, all the evidence is required to be led under Section 244, which practically would go to establish the guilt, if it would remain unrebutted. 6. In a private complaint case of such nature, all the evidence is required to be led under Section 244, which practically would go to establish the guilt, if it would remain unrebutted. 6. Learned Advocate Smt. Bajpai would rely on "Naji Rai Chheda Vs. State of Maharashtra & another" 1978(0) V.C.R. (Born) 661. In the given case, this Court held that the data must be clearly set out in the report of Public Analyst to demonstrate as to how the infringement of Rule 44(e) is made. It is difficult to find substance in the accusation when there is no data in the report nor the Public Analyst was examined in support of the complaint. There is only a vague reference in the report of Public Analyst that the baudouin test was positive and, therefore, it was concluded that the sample was contrary to Rule 44(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. It is difficult to see whether the maximum tolerance limit of 15.0 red units was found to be absent and whether the sample could not conform to the test, coupled with the requirements of the proviso appended to Rule 44(e)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. A slight variation found in the test, which indicated presence of castor seed oil is not sufficient for the purpose of holding the petitioners guilty, even on the face value of the report of Public Analyst. Considering the be legal aspects, it will have to be said that the petitioners ought to have been discharged and the impugned orders are liab]e to be quashed. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur below Exh.1 in Criminal Revision No.301 2005, on 31.8.2005 and the order dated 9.3.2005, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur below Exh.1 in RC.C. No.561 of 1994, are quashed and set aside and the petitioners are directed to be discharged from the charge levelled against them. The complaint filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is dismissed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. Petition allowed.