The central legal point established is the application of previous judgments declaring Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as ultra vires the rule-making power, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.

S.S.Nijjar, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the complaint and the resultant proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

2. On 10.11.1993, Food Inspector took a sample of `Raja Vanaspati from one Krishan Singh. After dividing the sample into three equal parts, one of the parts was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Analyst gave the report on 13.11.1993. The relevant extract of the same is as under :-

"I am of the opinion that the package has not been labelled in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32 of PFA Rules, 1955 as Batch/Lot/Code No. of the product has not been given. The product is, therefore, misbranded."

3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, Mr. D.S. Sawhney, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been declared ultra vires the rule making power, by the Supreme Court in case of Dwarka Nath and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1972 FAC 1. He further submits that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court has been followed by this Court in the case of Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 Criminal Law Times 160, and in the case of Goodricke Group Ltd. v. State of Punjab, 1996(2) FAC 331. Following the aforesaid judgments, the criminal proceedings instituted against Krishan Singh have been quashed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 9172-M of 1995. The matter is, therefore, squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments.

4. In view of the above, petition is allowed. Proceedings pending before the trial Court on the basis of the complaint-Annexure P-2 are hereby quashed. No costs.