Rathnakala, J.

1. The petitioner is arrayed as accused in a private complaint lodged by the respondent 2 in respect of the offence under Sections 2(i-a) and 7(ii) read with Rule 32(e) punishable under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('the Act' for brevity). The gist of the allegation is, the sample was misbranded vide label 3(c) and batch/lot number not printed on the label.

2. Sri S. Rajesh appearing on behalf of Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Dwarka Nath and Another v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1971 SC 1844 : (1971) 2 SCC 314 : 1971 SCC (Cri.) 514 : 1971 Cri. L.J. 1290 (SC), the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for misbranding of the sample and it is not an offence attracting punishment under Section 16(1) of the Act.

3. Sri Chetan Desai, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent submits that, "misbranded" is defined under Section 2(i-x) and 2(k) of the Act and said offence is made punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 ('the Rules' for short). Part VII of the Rules