IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9353 of 2009 Deepak Kumar, S/O-Shyam Bihari Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Mithapur, P.S.-Jakkanpur, District-Patna ………..Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar …………..Opposite Party ----------- 05 12.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 03.04.2006 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Case No. 53 (M) of 2006 by which and whereunder learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 against the petitioner on the basis of prosecution report submitted by a food inspector. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that presence of lead chromate itself is not an offence because the lead chromate is permissible up to the limit as prescribed in Rule 57 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. It is further contended by him that analysis report does not disclose this fact that the lead chromate was excess in quantity as prescribed limit. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions as well as facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed and impugned order dated 03.04.2006 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Case No. 53 (M) of 2006 is, hereby, quashed. 2 Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court for needful. SHAHZAD ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)