IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7179 of 2008 NAND KISHORE @ NAND KISHOR LAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 16.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order taking cognizance by learned S.D.J.M., Samastipur dated 27.9.2007 under various sections of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is misplaced because no substantive offence is made out in so far as this petitioner is concerned. He is a retailer and has small shop in the district of Samastipur. It is urged at the bar that the cognizance has been taken under many sections and rule such as sections 2(ix) (f) & (k) Rule 32 (iii), Clause (17) of the Act which basically relate to the labelling, packaging and misbranding for which the offence cannot be said to have been committed by the seller as the commodities for which the complaint has been filed were manufactured by reputed manufacturer in question that is Tata Tea Limited of different brands. On bare perusal of the above so called provisions under which cognizance has been taken, the contention of the petitioner seems to be correct since the petitioner is not the manufacturer of these items and therefore he cannot be saddled to the offence or breach for misbranding, mislabelling etc. The order taking cognizance seems to be misplaced and the same is quashed. This application is allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)