1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) the petitioner has sought quashing of complaint case no. 232/2006 titled Food Inspector (PFA) vs. Ashok Chhabra and Ors. and order of the trial court dated 06.10.2006 summoning the petitioners herein and all the proceedings emanating from the aforesaid complaint.

2. On 24.09.2005 at 4.00 p.m., Food Inspector Arun Kumar purchased a sample of processed cheese for analysis from Sh. Ashok Chhabra, son of Sh. B.R. Chhabra of M/s. New Cake Palace, 36, J Block Market, Saket (vendor) where the said food article was stored for sale. Sample consisting of three sealed tin packs of 400 gms. each bearing identical declaration, was taken under the supervision and direction of Sh. Manish Garg, SDM/LHA. Vendor disclosed that the sample article was supplied through M/s. NGS Commerce vide bill no. 1677 dated 22.09.2005 and accordingly a notice was also sent to the supplier by registered post. Notice was given to the vendor and price of the sample was also paid to the vendor vide receipt dated 24.9.05. All documents prepared by the Food Inspector were signed by the vendor and other witness Sh. S. Massey, F.A. The sample was divided into three equal parts i.e. one sealed tin pack in each counterpart and each packet was separately packed, fastened and sealed.

3. On 26.09.2005 one counter part of the sample bearing LHA code No. 72/LHA/13788 was received by Public Analyst, Delhi. Report of public analyst dated 10.10.2005 stated:- the sample is misbranded because it gives misleading statement regarding BEST BEFORE. However, processed cheese conforms to standard. Best before declared 9 months from the date of packing but date of packing not declared on label.

4. In the notice in Form IV prepared on 24.09.2005 it is stated that the month and year of manufacturing was declared on the label as August, 2005.

5. On investigation it was revealed that M/s NGS Commerce is a partnership concern. Sh. Uttam Kumar Shah and Sh. Soma Shah are its partners, who are accordingly made accused in the complaint. The said sample was supplied to NGS Commerce by M/s. Gujrat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, now shifted to Institutional Area, Janak Puri, New Delhi, who in turn was supplied cheese by Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Kheda Satellite Dairy Khatraj, Gujrat. Sh. S.K. Chopra is the nominee of petitioner No. 4 under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as PFA Act) and Sh.

S.S. Gokul Krishnan is the Deputy Manager (Quality Assurance) of petitioner no. 2. Both are accordingly made accused in the complaint.

6. On 26.09.2006 K.S. Wahi, Director, Prevention of Food Adulteration, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in exercise of power vested vide Section 20 PFA Act, gave consent for instituting prosecution against the accused.

7. On 6.10.2006 complaint under Section 16 PFA Act was filed in the court of Sh. Pritam Singh MM for the violation of Section 2(ix)(g) and (k) PFA Act and also Rule 32(f) and Rule 37 of PFA Rules punishable under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of PFA Act. The Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 7/16 PFA Act vide order dated 6.10.2006 and summoned the accused to appear on 3.7.2007.

8. It is argued by Mr. P.R. Thakur, counsel for the petitioners, that the said violation of Rule 32 by the petitioners, even if admitted for the sake of arguments, is admittedly a first violation and vide policy No. F6(228)/85/ENF/P.F.A. decision was taken by the Department of PFA, Govt. of NCT of Delhi as far back as in 1985, that in case, the contents of the sealed packet or container conformed to the standard laid down under the PFA Rules, deficiency with regard to Rule 32 which pertained to the particulars of the labeling on the container or packets is only a technical offence. In such a case the party concerned be given a