JUDGMENT M.M. Gupta, J. - This is an application under Section 482 Cr. P. G. invoking the inherent powers of this Court for quashing the proceedings arising out of the Crl. Case No. 181/80 pending in the Court of Munsif Magistrate Orai, at Jalaun, State v. Ibrahim and others. 2. It appears that the sample of 'Pan Masala' of manufacturers applicant No. 2 and 3 of Kanpur was being sold by the applicant No. 1 in District Jalaun. The sample which was taken by the Food Inspector was sent to the public analyst who reported that the sample contained saccharin which was an un-permitted food. On the basis of that report the complaint after obtaining the necessary sanction was instituted. 3. The contention of the applicants is that the case falls within exception provided in Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, which as amended upto date reads as follows : "47. Addition of artificial sweetener to be mentioned on the label. 4. Saccharin or any other artificial sweetener shall not be added to any article of food, except where the addition of such artificial sweetener is permitted in accordance with the standard laid down in Appendix B and where any artificial sweetener is added to food, the container of such food shall be labelled with an adhesive declaratory label which shall be in the form given below : "This contains an admixture of (name of food) (name of the artificial sweetener)." 5. The standard for saccharin is provided in Appendix B para A.07.10. The public analyst has not mentioned in his report that the saccharin contained in the 'Pan Masala' in question conform to the standard given in this para or not. He has only stated that it contains saccharin which is not permitted under rule 47. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the constituents of various food are given in Appendix B and they are to conform with them. If any other article out side Appendix B contains saccharin; thus, it has to conform with the standard given in para A.07.10. 7. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the constituents of various food are given in Appendix B and they are to conform with them. If any other article out side Appendix B contains saccharin; thus, it has to conform with the standard given in para A.07.10. 7. The learned counsel for the State has however, contended that if any article mentioned in Appendix B is permitted to contain saccharin then alone it will be permissible otherwise if any article outside with the list contained saccharin, even if it conforms to the standard given in para A.07.10, the offence would be made out. The words given in rule 47, "except were the addition of such artificial sweetener is permitted in accordance with the standard laid down in Appendix B" in my opinion do not support the contention of the learned counsel for the State. 8. In Appedix B only car-borated water is permitted to contain saccharin. The standard in saccharin contained in car-borated water is also mentioned in para A.01.01. It need not necessarily conform to the standard given in para A.07.10. This matter also came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court. The case of Bombay High Court reported in All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 1979 (1) 206, the State of Maharashtra v. Ranjit Bhai Babubhai Saralwalla, where it was observed that if the prosecution desired to prove that saccharin had been used in breach of the standard laid down in Appendix 'B' then they should have examined the public analyst to show that the saccharin mixed in supari sold by the accused did not conform to the standard laid down in clause A.07.10 of the Appendix 'B'. 9. In this view of the matter the application is allowed. The proceeding arising out of Crl. Case No. 181/80, State v. Ibrahim and others, pending in the Court of Munsif Magistrate Orai District Jalaun are hereby quashed.