Jyotirmoyee Nag, J.
1.This Rule is directed against an order No. 8 dated 4-7-1978 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge1, Alipore. The petitioner along with opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 were prosecuted for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with Section 7 of the said Act for violation of the statutory provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 before the learned Municipal Magistrate. The matter was considered exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The learned Magistrate sent the case to the Court of Session at Alipore and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, heard the matter and fixed the date for consideration of charge, i.e. on 24-5-1978. On that date the learned Public Prosecutor in charge of the case filed an application for adjournment of the case and for causing an investigation to be made regarding the identity of the accused No. 3 -opposite party No. 3. It was alleged that she was not Nilima Roy but Pratima Roy wife of Sunil Kr. Roy, opposite party No. 2. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge after making an enquiry ordered an investigation to be made by the Police and to submit a report. After the report was submitted by the Police, the Assistant Sessions Judge heard both the parties and was satisfied that the allegation made by the present petitioner against the opposite party No. 3 was not correct and that the accused opposite party No. 3 was the genuine Nilima Roy. He accordingly accepted the report of the Police and fixed a date for appearance of the accused persons and for consideration of the charge.
2. Against the said order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the petitioner who is an accused in the said case has come up for exercise of inherent power of this Court for intervention into the matter. It has been pointed out by the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties that the present application is incompetent under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if no complaint is made by the Court in respect of an offence under Section 205 of the Indian Penal Code in a pending proceeding, the remedy is by way of appeal by the person aggrieved. No revision lies, much less interference by exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Moreover, the remedy of appeal is available under Section 341, Criminal Procedure Code to the person aggrieved. The person aggrieved is the Public Prosecutor who filed the application in the matter. The present petitioner is in the position of an informant only. He has no locus standi to file the instant application. On this ground alone the application is liable to be dismissed.
3. Accordingly, I discharge the Rule.