IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47908 of 2007 1. MANOJ KUMAR 2. Raju Kumar ……………………………. Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr Vivek Prasad For the State: Mr Rajendra Nath Jha, APP ---- 3. 17.02.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 4.10.2005 in G.O. Case No. 62/2005, Trial No. 1498/2005 taking cognizance under Section 16 (a) (1) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Section 7 (50) (1) of the provisions of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are retail shopkeepers. What was seized from their shop was biscuit styled as Shanti Gold Hand Made Biscuit manufactured by M/s Maa Shanti Bakeries. The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for a product which they have not manufactured when the manufacturer has not been impleaded as an accused. There is no allegation that the petitioner is the manufacturer. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution of the retail dealer without impleading the manufacturer of the product, when there are no allegations that they were the manufacturer, the allegations being that the manufactured product was misbranded, the prosecution of the petitioners alone shall be in a clear abuse of the process of the Court. It is the prosecution alone which has to be blamed for lodging an incomplete prosecution report in absence of the manufacturer of the product, which is alleged to be misbranded. The petitioners not being the manufacturer cannot be made answerable. The prosecution has opted not to question the manufacturer. In the result, the impugned order dated 4.10.2005 passed in G.O. Case No. 62/2005, Trial No. 1498/2005 is accordingly quashed. This application is allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)