JUDGMENT Chandra Prakash, J. - This is an application under section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the prosecution of the applicant under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act) read with U.P. Pure Food Rules, 1952. 2. The allegations against the applicant are that on 15-12-1973 the applicant was found selling Khoya pera. According to the applicant, he was simply selling Dudh-Bura-Ki-Tikki. The recovered sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and the appellant was eventually prosecuted. The charge framed/against the applicant was that he was found selling adulterated pera of Khoya which was punishable under section 7/16 of the Act read with U.P. Pure Food Rules 1952. 3. The applicant has moved this application on the ground that U.P. Pure Food Rules, 1952 no longer exists and he cannot be punished for breach of those Rules. Notice of this application was issued to the state. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and after going through the record I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution of the applicant on the charge, as framed, must be quashed. 4. The Act was enforced on 1-6-1955. After the enforcement of this Act under Section 25, Sub-clause (1), all corresponding law on the subject, prevailing before the Act was repealed. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act is as follows : - "(2) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of any corresponding law, all rules, regulations and bye-laws relating to the prevention of adulteration of food made under such corresponding law and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall, except here and so far as they are inconsistent with or repugnant to the provision of this Act, continue in force until altered, amended or repealed by rules under this Act." A perusal of this above sub-section will show that the provisions of the U.P. Pure Food Rules of 1952 were retained till they were altered, amended or repealed by rules under this Act unless they were inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of this Act. The Central Government framed Prevention of Food adulteration Rules, 1956 and they were enforced on 1st of December, 1956. It will, therefore, follow that U.P. Pure Food Rules, 1952 continued to remain in force upto 1st December, 1956. The Central Government framed Prevention of Food adulteration Rules, 1956 and they were enforced on 1st of December, 1956. It will, therefore, follow that U.P. Pure Food Rules, 1952 continued to remain in force upto 1st December, 1956. The framing of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 amounted to the repeal or deletion of U.P. Pure Food Rules, 1952. Any prosecution of the applicant with the aid of U.P. Pure Food Rules of 1952 after 1st December, 1956, is, therefore, bad. 5. I was not shown that any prosecution was launched after the first day of December, 1956 with the aid of U.P. Pure Food Rules, 1952. All the prosecutions launched thereafter were for violating rules contained in Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The prosecution of the applicant with the aid of U.P. Pure Food Rules, 1952 is, therefore, bad and must be set aside, of course, the prosecution is at liberty to prosecute the applicant for violation of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 if his case comes under any of them or any rules subsequently framed, or any other rules made by the State Government under the Act. 6. In the result, the application is allowed and the prosecution of the applicant with the aid of U.P. Pure Food Rules, 1952, as mentioned in the charge sheet (Annexure VII) is quashed.