Hon’ble Chandra Dhari Singh, J.—The applicant, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 15.9.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow in complaint case No. 3924 of 2009, P.S. Mahanagar (Lucknow), State v. Usman and others, under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The prayer has also been made to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case.

2. Heard Sri Vikas Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the Government of India-respondent No. 4 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicant is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is having its registered office at 165/166 Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai-400020. The company is having its Branch office at Block No. A, Plot No. B, South City-I, Delhi Jaipur Highway, Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana). On 1.6.2009 the Food Inspector, Lucknow visited the premises of one Mr. Usman having its business at Gopalpurva, P.S. Mahanagar, Lucknow and lifted a sample of “Kwality Wall’s Medium Fat Frozen Dessert”, a Proprietary Milk Product for analysis under the provisions of the P.F.A. Act, 1954. Thereafter the sample of the ‘Medium Fat Frozen Desert’ has been sent to the laboratory and the Public Analyst has given its report on 9.7.2009. The opinion of the Public Analyst was that the Milk Fat content is less than the prescribed minimum limit of 5% for ‘Medium Fat Frozen Desert’ and wt/volume (gram/lit) is also less then the prescribed minimum limit of 475.0 and the sample is adulterated. On the basis of the inspection report and the report given by the Public Analyst, Mr. Dilip Kumar Dey, Food Inspector, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow has filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Thereafter Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow has taken cognizance and issued summons to the applicant company on 15.9.2009. Thereafter, on various dates, summons have been issued to the applicant company but the applicant could not receive the summons issued by the Court below. As soon as the applicant company came to know about the said complaint and the cognizance order including summons, the applicant approached this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that whole complaint made against the applicant is baseless and misconceived as it has been filed on the basis of an imaginary standards which has not been enforced.

He further contended that the standard for item ‘Medium Fat Frozen Dessert’ is given in Appendix B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1955’) as Item No. A.11.02.7.02. The standard for total Fat for ‘Medium Fat Frozen Desser/Frozen Confections’ is given not less than 5% but less than 10%.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Government of India exercising its power under Section 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act published Notification No. G.S.R. 356 (E) dated 7.6.2005 stating therein the draft standards of “Medium Fat Frozen Dessert” and also notified that any objections from the general public will be considered and thereafter, the final standards will be published and enforced with effect from the date of the publish in the official Gazette. The Notification reads as follows :

“G.S.R. 356 (E) Whereas a draft of certain rules further to amend the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, were published, as required by sub-section (10 of Section 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (37 of 1954) at pages 1 to 94 in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, part II, Section 3, sub-section (I) dated 20.6.2003, under the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Fam