JUDGMENT H.P. Sandesh, J. - These two petitions are filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the complainant for cancellation of bail granted in favour of accused Nos.1 and 3, praying to set aside the order dated 11.06.2021 passed in Crl.Misc.No.614/2021 and Crl.Misc.No.601/2021, respectively on the file of I additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya arising out of Crime No.161/2021 of Maddur Police Station, Mandya District, for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 406 and 420 of IPC and Sections 7(1) and 16 of the Prevention of Food adulteration act, 1954. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the petitions and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant - Venkatesh, Manager of MaNMUL, Gejjalagere, Mandya, has lodged a complaint on 28.05.2021 alleging that P. Raju/accused No.1 being a contractor of MaNMUL and owner of a tanker bearing registration No.Ka-51/aF-2634 to supply milk to MaNMUL, has violated the terms and conditions of the transport contract and has committed the offences by misusing the milk collected from BMC Centers and also indulged in adulterating the milk and thereby he has caused monitory loss to MaNMUL. 4. The other accused, who has been granted bail, his name has not been included in the FIR and mentioned in the complaint and he has been served with a notice dated 31.05.2021, making an allegation that he made an attempt to adulteration of milk and caused loss to MaNMUL and he also indulged in committing the offence. The Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.601/2021, granted bail in favour of accused No.1 and in Crl.Misc.No.614/2021, granted bail in favour of other accused, who has been subsequently arraigned as accused No.3. Hence, these two petitions are filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of bail invoking Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5. The main contention of the complainant in Crl.P.No.4394/2021 granted bail in favour of accused No.1, contended that he has committed the serious offence and indulged in scandalous activities endangering the health of the general public who are the end users. When such being the case, the very presence of the respondent herein was in need of fair investigation. The main contention of the complainant in Crl.P.No.4394/2021 granted bail in favour of accused No.1, contended that he has committed the serious offence and indulged in scandalous activities endangering the health of the general public who are the end users. When such being the case, the very presence of the respondent herein was in need of fair investigation. However, the Trial Court failed to take note of the nature of the allegation made in the complaint and also seriousness of the allegations made against him. The learned counsel also would submit that the Trial Court has failed to consider the complaint, which clearly establishes that the respondent is the habitual offender and another vehicle also seized which was holding secret compartment in between two compartments for storing the water and its secret pipe connecting to the Milk unloading Valve. In spite of it, the Trial Court proceeded to enlarge him on bail on vague grounds. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court. 6. The contention of the complainant in Crl.P.No.4398/2021 is that the respondent has committed the serious offences of food adulteration which is heinous offence and the same is scandalous activities endangering the health of the general public and while granting the anticipatory bail, the Trial Court has not considered the nature of offences and this respondent has suppressed the fact of habitual offender as he is already indulged in similar activities and he was black-listed from Bangalore District Co-operative Milk Producer's Societies Union Limited. The vehicle was caught on 29.05.2021 and once again another vehicle was caught in similar circumstances on 31.05.2021. When such being factual aspects of the case, the Trial Court failed to take note of all these aspects. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court. 7. The vehicle was caught on 29.05.2021 and once again another vehicle was caught in similar circumstances on 31.05.2021. When such being factual aspects of the case, the Trial Court failed to take note of all these aspects. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court. 7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State in both the petitions would submit that the matter was referred under investigation to CID and no permission for change of vehicle is also taken and there was a separate water and milk secret compartment in the vehicle which was used for collecting and supply of milk and also the Investigating Officer collected the material regarding collection of amount from private daily supplying the milk belongs to the complainant dairy and the amount is also collected in the name of the driver and also from where the chemical was purchased for adulteration of milk and the bill also collected during the course of investigation, load and unload meteorology report is also taken and the same is evident that a false report is collected. It is also contended that though the letter is tendered for usage of change of vehicle for three days and permission was not given. In spite of it, he had used the different vehicle. 8. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/accused in both the petitions, who has been given permission to address his arguments, who vehemently contend that the complainant not disputing the tendering of letter and only in order to remove from the contract, a false allegation is made and the nature of allegation made not attracts the criminal offence. The learned trial Judge while granting bail has assigned the reason and a detailed order was passed in paragraph No.10. 9. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/accused also would submit that the Food adulteration act is a self contained act. In paragraph Nos.10 and 11, the Trial Court has given the reasons and only with an intention to malign the respondent, the present petitions are filed and no reasons are made out to invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. 10. 9. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/accused also would submit that the Food adulteration act is a self contained act. In paragraph Nos.10 and 11, the Trial Court has given the reasons and only with an intention to malign the respondent, the present petitions are filed and no reasons are made out to invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. 10. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 , wherein, the apex Court held that the cancellation of bail already granted must be considered and dealt with on different basis and expression of opinion on merits at initial stage while dealing with the application for anticipatory bail is improper. 11. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 also relied upon the orders passed by the trial Judge in Crl.Misc.No.638/2021 and Crl.Misc.No.715/2021, wherein, also anticipatory bail granted in favour of other accused. 12. The learned counsel for respondent No.2, further relied upon the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.6935/2018 (M.J. Devaraj v. State of Karnataka). 13. This Court in the similar circumstances in a case of Food adulteration invoked the discretion by exercising the powers under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., and comes to the conclusion that the allegation in the complaint is that the milk product has been adulterated, which is a matter to be considered and appreciated at the time of trial. The offences are not punishable with death of imprisonment for life and also taken note of the earlier order passed by the Trial Court while granting the bail, the petitions are liable to be rejected. 14. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, these two respondents are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 3. at the first instance, accused No.3 was not arraigned as an accused and later he was arraigned as an accused. The specific allegation against accused No.1 is that he had indulged in using of different vehicles for transportation of milk and he has violated the terms and conditions of the transport contract and the offences committed by misusing the milk collected from BMC Centers and also indulged in adulterating the milk. Only after issuance of notice against accused No.3, he has been arraigned as an accused. Only after issuance of notice against accused No.3, he has been arraigned as an accused. No doubt, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the matter was referred under investigation to CID and no permission for change of vehicle is also taken and there was a separate water and milk secret compartment. But in the cases on hand, bail has been granted and the Trial Court while granting bail made an observation that in order to terminate the contract, the cases are registered. 15. apart from that, the Trial Court also given the reason that the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. No doubt, the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, normally; Courts will grant bail exercising the discretion since the offences are triable by the Magistrate. When such being the factual aspects of the case, the Trial Court would exercise its discretion while granting bail. 16. Having considered the offences and the seriousness of the allegations and mere referring the matter to CID is not a ground to invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. Whether there was a violation of contract or indulged in adulteration of milk and collected the bills from different persons and authority from where the chemical was purchased and the same is also an appreciation of material on record during the course of trial. When such being the case, I do not find any reasons to invoke and exercise the powers under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. It is also settled law that granting of bail must be considered and dealt with on different basis and so also cancellation of bail must be considered and dealt with on different basis. When such being the settled principle of law, the Court has to take note of the same, hence, I do not find any merit in the petitions to invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., to cancel the bail when the Trial Court has exercised its discretion considering the nature of offences and allegations. 17. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The cancellation of bail petitions are rejected.