IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29872 of 2001 SUDHIR NAYAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3. 18.8.2010. Heard Sri N.K.Agrawal, learned senior counsel and Sri Jayant Roy Choudhary appearing for the petitioner and also heard the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is being prosecuted for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It appears that a search was conducted in the business premises of the petitioner and a packet of Annapurna iodized eatable salt was picked up and that was sent for chemical analysis as per rules. The report of the analyst appears at page-32 of the present brief which is one of the Annexures to the complaint petition. According to the Public Analyst Report the packet of eatable salt was not containing the declaration as was required to be printed on the packet in consonance with Rule 32(i)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. I have perused the relevant rules and I find that Rule 32(i)was introduced by GSR No.537 dated 13th of June, 2000 and it was made - 2 - effective from the Ist of September, 2000. It required the manufactures to place a declaration on the packet of the food material to the effect that it was best in use before a particular number of months and years. On account of there being no declaration on the packet, the Public Analyst reported that it was a misbranded food article in light of the above noted rules of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. As just pointed out the article was packed, undisputedly, in July, 2000, the rules requiring to print the declaration about the best use of the food article was brought into force from the Ist of September, 2000, i.e., two months after the seizure of the food article. As such, on the day on which the packet was picked up by the Food Inspector from the business premises of the petitioner was not covered by the relevant rules under which the eatable salt had been declared misbranded. It appears out and out a meaningless prosecution as on the day on which the article was packed, there was no commission of any offence. In the above view, the whole proceeding initiated in Complaint Case No.48(M) of 2000 - 3 - passed by S.D.J.M., Patna Sadar is hereby quashed. The petition is allowed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )