Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing charge sheet arising out of Case Crime No. 192 of 2010, registered as Case No. 418 of 2010, (State Vs. Chandra Pal Saini), under Sections 272 I.P.C., and Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, District Aligarh. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the proceedings under the charged Sections were drawn and the report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample of` food items (Besan Ka Laddu) was found unfit for human consumption and the sample was found adulterated with non-permitted synthetic colour, auramine. Learned counsel has further argued that using of non-permitted synthetic colour which is said to be unfit for human comsumption but it has not been stated by the Public Analyst that it is spurious/abnoxious, hence the charge sheet can only be filed under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and no charge sheet can be filed under Section 272 I.P.C. It is next contended that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. Learned A.G.A. has contended that as per report of Public Analyst, offence under the charged Sections is made out and no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under 482 Cr.P.C., jurisdiction. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228, or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. The prayer for quashing the charge sheet is refused. However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off. _____________