none inspite of due notice appeared for respondent, is whether a Food Inspector who has taken the sample as a private purchaser can lodge prosecution for the same and if a Food Inspector and private consumer are two different distinct from each other and no one can be a substitute for the other. In a Division Bench view in State (Food Inspector) versus Babu Singh, 2014(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 894 this Court has observed in para no. 7 of the above referred judgment that the scope of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 has been made wider with the amendment of Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment), Act 1986 with effect from 1.5.1987, thus empowering any purchaser of any article of food other than a Food Inspector, a recognized consumer association etc. from having such food article analysed by the Public Analyst subject to certain procedure. Referring to section 12 of the Act, it was held by the Hon'ble Division Bench that there is no bar to Food Inspector acting in such a manner as a private purchaser and in terms of section 20 of the Act, the prosecution for such an offence can be instituted even by purchaser after producing the copy of of the report of the Public Analyst along with the complaint and therefore, even by that scope it would be highly inappropriate to reach the conclusion as has been done in the impugned findings. Keeping in view these discussions, exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court in terms of section 482 Cr.P.C. and in view of the fact that since large number of
