1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 179/2001 pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanore, district Udaipur and against the order dated 27.7.2001 passed by the learned trial Court whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 (1) read with Section 16 (1) (a) and (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, "the P.F.A. Act").

2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is said to be running a proprietorship concern in the name and style of "M/s. Hemant General Stores" at Kanore. The Food Inspector of the area is said to have taken a sample of prepackaged salt of the brand "Annpurna" from the petitioner's shop on 22.12.2000 and the same was subjected to analysis by the Public Health Laboratory, Udaipur. The Public Analyst submitted his report dated 24.01.2001 and the conclusion as per the report was that the sample was misbranded because the statement regarding month/year, upto which the product could be best for consumption, was not mentioned on the packet "in capital letters" as required by rule 32 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The petitioner's prosecution was thus recommended for violation of Section 2 (ix) (k) of the Act for selling misbranded food. The Food Inspector thus proceeded to file a complaint against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 (ii) read with Section 16 (a) (i) of the Act in the Court of A.C.J.M. Kanore. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence by order dated 27.76.2001.

3. A challenge to the complaint, as well as the order dated 27.7.2001 taking cognizance passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, has been made by the petitioner by way of the instant miscellaneous petition.

4. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's prosecution has been launched for the infringement of a law/Rule which was not in force when the sample was collected; thus it is submitted that the prosecution of the petitioner is absolutely illegal and an abuse of process of the Court.

5. Referring to the certified copy of the complaint, spot memo and the Public Analyst's report annexed with the petition, it is submitted that in none of these documents, it has been mentioned as to what was the best before date, which was inscribed on the packaged salt of which the sample was drawn from the petitioner's premises.

6. For the purpose of resolving this factual dispute, when the matter came up before this Court on 22.9.2011, this Court directed the learned trial Court to inspect the record as well as the sample of the seized salt and to verify the date of manufacture mentioned on the packet. Based on the said direction, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has submitted his report dated 02.11.2011 to this Court, as per which, the second sample of salt available with the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Udaipur, bears the packaging date as 05/2000 (May 2000).

7. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the date, the article of food was manufactured /packed the requirement to inscribe the "best before" date on the prepackaged food article in "capital letters" was not existing in the Rules. He submits that this requirement of mentioning the "best before" date in "capital letters" was introduced for the first time by an amendment in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules introduced through a Notification dated 13.6.2000, whereby rule 32 (i) was inserted in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. He further contends that the Central Government issued another Notification in exercise of its power under Section 22-A of the Act, whereby the Notification dated 13.6.2000 was made effective from 01.9.2000. Learned counsel, thus, submits that as the sample of