Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10712 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1507 of 2016 Applicant :- Braj Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradyumn Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with prayer to quash the impugned entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2453 of 2008, under Sections 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (State Vs. Braj Kumar Shukla), Police Station Ajgain, District Unnao, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Unnao as well as revisional order dated 19.1.2016 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Unnao in Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2015 relates to the applicant, in the interest of justice. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case, sample of Tata salt was taken from the shop of the applicant on which batch number and lot number was not mentioned. The sample was sent to Government Public Analyst Lucknow who submitted its Report No. 14490 dated 24.01.2005 in which it was found that there was no any adulteration in the sample but as per rule 32(e) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, batch/lot number was not mentioned. On account of violation of its rule, present complaint was filed against the applicant on the basis of which cognizance was taken by the learned court concerned and summoning order was passed on 05.08.2008. 4. It is further submitted that there was no any adulteration found in the sample but only non-mention of batch/lot number of the packet cannot be said to be an offence under the Act/Rules. He relied on his arguments in the case of M/s Flavorad India Thru Prop. (Complaint Case) Vs. The state of U.P. and another in Case No. U/s 482/378/407 No. 207 of 2013 decided by this Court on 17.04.2013 relying on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Nath and another Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In para nos. 8 and 9 of the aforesaid judgment as quoted below: "8. Attention of the Court has also been drawn towards the report furnished by the Public Analyst, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, which has been appended alongwith Annexure No.1. In the opinion, the Public Analyst has said that Rule 32 (e) of the Rules of 1955 has been violated because Batch number has not been given on the product. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dwarka Nath case (supra) has held thus in para 23 : "There is no definition of the expression "batch number" or "code number" either in the Act or the Rules. It is also admitted that even assuming that the batch or code number has to be given, there is no further obligation to specify in the label the date of packing and manufacture of the article of food or the period within which the article of food has to be utilised, used or consumed. In the absence of any obligation to give the particulars mentioned by us above, the public or the purchaser will not be able to find out even the freshness of the contents of a container. Therefore, it follows that merely giving an artificial batch number or code number will not be of any use to the public or to the purchaser. In view of all these circumstances, we are of the opinion that rule 32(e) is beyond the rule making power even under Section 23 (1) (d) of the Act. The appellants could not be convicted for any violation of clause (e) of the rule 32 as the said provision, as pointed out above, is invalid." 5. It is also submitted that on the basis of aforesaid observation of the Apex Court and this Court the applicant cannot be convicted for non-compliance of Rule 32(e) of the rules, therefore, request to quash the entire criminal proceedings of the case, order of cognizance and summoning order. 6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid but could not dispute the legal position as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court and followed by this Court. 7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record, it is clear from the contents of the complaint that sample of Tata salt was sent to Government Public Analyst Lucknow but in analysis no adulteration was found except violation of Rule 32(e) of the aforesaid rules. On the basis of which present complaint was filed. In view of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case and followed by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, if the proceedings are permitted to continue it will amount to misuse of process of the court. As a result, the order passed by the learned court concerned is liable to be quashed. As a result the present application is allowed and proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2453 of 2008, under Sections 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (State Vs. Braj Kumar Shukla), Police Station Ajgain, District Unnao, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Unnao as well as revisional order dated 19.1.2016 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Unnao in Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2015 as well as summoning order is hereby quashed. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Anurag Singh Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench