Judgment 1. THIS application for quashing of the charge framed along with the proceedings complained of, arises out of Case No. 200d of 1977 pending in the Second Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 1st Class, Calcutta. The charge has been framed against the present petitioner under sec. 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) read with rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules), by an order dated 19. 9. 80 passed by the said learned magistrate. In the said charge, it appears that violation of Rule 31 instead of Rule 32 has been, alleged. This is an obvious slip or error. 2. THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20. 7. 77 the complainant/ opposite party No. 1 herein inspected the factory of the petitioner at 16, Malhiabadi Street, calcutta and inspected an article of food, namely, "orange Special" (carbonated water) meant for sale and human consumption. On examination, it appeared to the opposite party No. 1 that the label of the containers did not contain the business address of the manufacturers as required by Rule 32 of the said Rules. The Public Analyst after examination was of the opinion that the sample bottles, sent to him for examination, contained carbonated water (Orange Special. The relevant portion of Rule 32 of, the said Rules is as follows :- "unless otherwise provided in these rules there shall be specified on every lable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) The name and business address of the manufacturer or importer or vendor or packer. " 3. THE only question that arises in this case is whether Rule 32 (b) of the said rules has been violated. There is no dispute that although in the paper lable (a copy of which has been annexed in annexure C to the present petition) only the name of the manufacturer "rose and thistle" without any address has been given, on the crown cork there appears the following :- "rose and Thistle, Calcutta-16 containing no fruit juice, 2946 fpo. " The paper lable contains other particulars, but no address. " The paper lable contains other particulars, but no address. Evidence, both oral and documentary, has been led by the petitioner to show that "rose and thistle" is a reputed concern. Communications addressed to Rose and Thistle calcutta-16 have been duly received by the said concern through post. Annexure f to the present petition sets out copies of a Post Card and the Envelope, thus addressed and received by Rose and Thistle through post. 4. MR. Sengupta, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has relied upon the case reported in A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 1844 and on an unreported Division Bench decision of Monoj K. Mukherjee and S. N. Sanyal, JJ, in Criminal Revision Case no. 825 of 1980 decided on 18. 6. 81. In a. I. R. 1971 S. C. 1844 also reported in 1971 cr. L. J. 1290 (Dwarka Nath and Anr. Vs. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi), the Supreme Court held that in that case there was a substantial compliance with Clause (b) of Rule 32 of the said Rules as the appellants in that case had given in the liable address as "mohan Ghee Laboratories, New Delhi-5". It was further held in that case that the appellant could not be convicted for a technical breach of rule 32 (b) alone. In the said Division Bench decision in Criminal Revision Case No. 825 of 1980 (Pure Drinks (Calcutta) Ltd. Vs. Dr. B. Roy Chowdhury) it was held that address of the manufacturer which was stated as "pure Drinks (Calcutta) Ltd. " on the corks of the carbonated water bottles under the, trade name "campa" was sufficient to. locate the place of business, since Pure Drinks (Calcutta) Ltd. was a reputed concern and could be easily located without their specific business address. Their Lordships were of the view that since indication was given on the corks that this Company was located in Calcutta, the same was sufficient compliance with Rule 32 (b) of the said Rules. In the present case, there is to dispute that on the corks of the bottles in question part from the name and Thistle", the Calcutta Postal code number is also there i. e. Calcutta-16. 5. UNDER Section 2 (v) of the Act 'food' means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. UNDER Section 2 (v) of the Act 'food' means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " Under explanation to Rule 32 of the said rules the term "lable" includes a "crown Cork". 6. ON the facts and circumstances of this case and relying upon the two decisions, referred to above, I am of the view that in this case there has been substantial compliance with Rule 32 (b)of the said Rules since the address given on the Crown corks is sufficient to locate the reputed CONCERN in question on the strength of the address given on the said crown corks the concerned authorities or other persons cannot have any difficulty in locating the said concern. Accordingly, I hold that no offence, as alleged by the prosecution has been prima facie made out against the petitioner and the charge framed must be set aside. The application, accordingly, succeeds. The said charge framed by the order dated 19. 9. 80 together with all proceedings in the said pending Case No. 200d of 1977 are quashed. The Rule is made absolute.