IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-10657 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.7.2011 Pawan Kumar ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG, Haryana. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) By filing this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner seeks quashing of complaint titled State vs. Pawan Kumar and another (Annexure P-3) and the summoning order dated June 9th, 2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal (Annexure P-4) whereby petitioner was summoned to face trial under Section 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. On January 23rd, 2008 Narain Dutt, Food Inspector, Karnal checked the premises of a grocery shop of the petitioner. The petitioner was keeping 20 packets of Rajma White Aadhar for public sale. Food Inspector took a sample of Rajma from the petitioner. After dividing the sample into three equal parts, one of the parts was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Analyst gave the report (Annexure P-2), whereby, the packet was not labelled in accordance with the provisions of rule 32 of the Prevention of Adulteration Rules, 1955 as it did not bear any symbol and colour code to indicate the product as vegetarian food as required under rule 32 of PFA Rules, 1955. The product was, therefore, misbranded. 3. Indisputably, rule 32 of the PFA Rules, 1955 has been declared ultra-vires by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dwarka Nath and others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1972 FAC 1. Criminal Misc. No. M-10657 of 2010 (2) The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has been followed by this Court in Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1993, Criminal Law Times 160; Goodricke Group Limited vs. State of Punjab, 1996 (2) FAC 331; and Om Parkash vs. State of Punjab 2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 769. 4. Since the rule 32 has been declared ultra-vires, the complaint (Annexure P-3) and the summoning order (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court below are not sustainable. Thus, revision petition is accepted. The complaint (Annexure P-3) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 29.7.2011. SN