IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2970 of 2009 TARUN KUMAR SON OF SURESH PRASAD SAH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA DINA SAH LANE, MUNDI CHAK POLICE STATION KOTWALI ( TILKAMANJHI), DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 30.11.2010 This application is under Section 482 of the Cr. Procedure Code for quashing the order dated 22.01.2007 passed by the C.J.M Bhagalpur taking cognizance for the offence under Section 16(1)(A) of the IPC. Petitioner is Tarun Kumar the shopkeeper M/s Treat Ice Cream parlaur and the allegation is that exposing for sale of Appy Fruit Juice, which does not confirm to the labeling position and so it is misbranded as per the report of the public Analyst Bihar Patna and it is alleged that the Food Inspector namely Sudama Chaudhari visiting the shop of the petitioner M/s Treat ice cream Parlaur at Notel Vinit Campus Gurudwara Road, Bhagalpur on 25.10.2006 and purchased three pockets of 200 ML each of Appy i.e., food product for Rs. 30/- only and sealed them before the witness and obtained signature of the petitioner and the sample collected was sent to the Combined food and drugs Laboratory for public analyst report on 30.11.2006. The report of public analyst is that the sample 2 of Appy Fruit Juice does not confirm to labeling provision so it is misbranded as the Logo for Vegetarian is not fixed on the proper site of the label. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, contends that the allegation in the present case merely stating that the logo is not fixed at the proper place of the label is by itself not comes within the mischief of Sub- Section 2A of Section 9 and hence no offence is made out and has placed reliance upon decision reported in 2008 (4) PLJR Page 135 as well as unreported decision/order dated 01.10.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3697 of 2007 Smt. Vimla Bali Vs. State of Bihar and again unreported decision in its order dated 09.11.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No.15313 Praveen Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar where it has been held that the rule regarding the labeling vitiates that the description of the food ingredients with respect to the vegetarian or non- vegetarian should be clearly stated and the rule does not provide where it should be fixed but is only provides for giving Logo for Vegetarian or Non-vegetarian.. Having regard to the fact that the Public Analyst report is only to the effect that the sample does not confirm to the labeling provision so it is misbranded and report of the public Analyst does not show any violation of any provision rules or Act. Hence having 3 regard to the fact and circumstances that the cognizance of the offence under Section 16(A) of the Prevention of the Food and Adulteration Act are not made away as such the impugned order dated 22.01.2007 is hereby quashed by which the cognizance taken on the prosecution report is hereby quashed and petition is allowed. Amrendra/ ( Gopal Prasad, J.)