ORDER :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

2. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings of Cr. Case No. 404/2011 pending trial in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pokran, District Jaisalmer for the offences punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

3. The complaint came to be filed by the Food Inspector, Jaisalmer with an allegation that the sample of Real Active Apple Juice was collected from a vendor named Sonam Sweets, Pokran on 26.4.2011. The sample so collected was forwarded to the Public Analyst, Public Health Laboratory, Jodhpur from where, a report dated 25.5.2011 was issued indicating that the same did not conform to the prescribed standards as laid down in the Appendix-B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Accordingly, the complaint came to be filed against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

4. During pendency of the proceedings, on an application under Section 13(2)(C) of the PF Act which was filed on 4.5.2012, the second sample of the food article was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis from where, a report dated 21.4.2012 has been received as per which, the sample conforms to the standards laid down under the PF Rules.

5. The controversy involved in the case at hand is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Pawan K. Saraf & Anr. reported in (1999) 2 SCC 400, wherein it was held as below :

"3. On 19.7.1989 a Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta took sample of compounded Asafoetida from the shop of the respondent. When one of the parts of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Calcutta it was analysed and found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the standard prescribed for that food article and hence report was forwarded to the Local Health Authority. A complaint was thereafter filed against the respondent before the Magistrate Court concerned for the aforesaid offence. When respondent entered appearance he made an application to the court for sending one of the remaining parts of the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory and the court despatched it as prayed for. The Director of Central Food Laboratory sent a Certificate to the court specifying the result of the analysis to the effect that the food article contained in the sample conforms to the standard prescribed for compounded Asafoetida.

11. Sub-section (2-B) of Section 13 requires the court to despatch one of the parts of the sample under its own seal to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. Once it is despatched it is the duty of the said Director to send a Certificate to the court "in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the part of the sample specifying the result of the analysis". Sub-section (3) of Section 13 is important in this context and is extracted below:

"The certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under subsection (2-B) shall supersede the report given by the public analyst under subsection (1)".

19. For the aforesaid reasons the High Court has rightly quashed the prosecution proceedings on the strength of the Certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory which has come on record in the case."

6. Law is well settled that the report of the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Public Analyst. As the report dated 21.4.2012 issued by Central Food Laboratory establishes the fact that the sample conforms to the standards laid down under the PF Rules, allowing prosecution of the petitioners on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, unquestionably amounts to an abuse of process of Court.

7. Accordingly, the misc. petition des