JUDGMENT P. Dayal, J. - There are six connected petitions filed under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The petition No. 1143 of 1980 has been filed by Saeed Ahmad against the State and three others for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 1363 of 1979, State v. Hira Lal Gupta & Ors. under sections 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This case arose out of the facts that on March 10, 1978 at about 3 p.m. Food Inspector G.G. Krishna Kumar purchased from M/s. Saraswati Traders Rakabganj, Lucknow 375 gms. of mustard Oil (Omega brand) which shop was owned by Hira Lal Gupta. The sample was purchased from a sealed tin which purported to have been manufactured by the opposite party No. 4 M/s. Habib Oil Corporation, Kanpur. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst and on receiving his report sanction was obtained and a complain was filed. 3. The Petition No. 1280 of 1980 has been filed by M/s Habib Oil Corporation, Kanpur for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 1363 of 1979, State v. Hira Lal Gupta and others under sections 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the basis of the afore-mentioned facts of petition No. 1143 of 1980. 4. The petition No 2457 of 1980 has been filed by Saeed Ahmad for quashing the proceedings of a case State v. M/s. Habib Oil Corporation and others under sections 7/16 P.F.A. Act. The facts giving rise in this petition, briefly stated, are that on August 7, 1979 at about I p m the Food Inspector K.C. Gera purchased 375 gms. of mustard Oil (Omega brand) from Hari Narain Sahu opposite party No 2 in Gadbadjhala market, Lucknow from a sealed tin and sent the sample to the Public Analyst, on receipt of the report of the Public Analyst the sanction was obtained and a complaint was filed. The opposite party No. 3 M/s. Habib Corporation, Kanpur was found to be the manufacturer firm of that sample. 5. The petition No. 215 of 1981 has been filed by M/s. Habib Oil Corporation, Kanpur and Mahammad Hasan for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 195 of 1980 State v. Hari Narain Sahu & Ors. under sections 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 5. The petition No. 215 of 1981 has been filed by M/s. Habib Oil Corporation, Kanpur and Mahammad Hasan for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 195 of 1980 State v. Hari Narain Sahu & Ors. under sections 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The facts giving rise to this petition are that on June 27, 1979 at about 2.30 p m. the Food Inspector T.N. Srivastava inspected the premises of Hari Narain Sahu opposite party No. 2 and purchased 375 gms. of mustard oil, Omega, brand, the same was sent to the Public Analyst and on receiving his report sanction was obtained and complaint was filed. 6. The petition No. 216 of 1981 has been filed by M/s. Habib Oil Corporation, Kanpur for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 1103 of 1979. State v. Shanti Prakash under sections 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The facts giving rise to this petition are that on December 5, 1978 at about 1 p.m. the Food Inspector Sri T.N. Srivastava purchased 450 gms. of mustard oil from the shop of Shanti Prakash opposite party No. 2 situated in mohalla Raja Bazar Lucknow. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst and on receiving his report, the sanction was obtained and the complaint was filed. 7. The petition No. 626 of 1983 has been filed by Proprietors Saeed Ahmad Sharif Ahmad. Oil and Vegetable Oil Merchant, Kanpur through their nominee Mohammad Hasan for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 861 of 1981, State v. Ashok Kumar and others under sections 7/16 P.F.A. Act. The facts giving rise to this petition are that on June 14, 1979 at about 10.30 a.m. Chief Food Inspector Ram Shankar of Rae Bareli purchased a sample of 375 gms, mustard oil (Omega brand) from the shop of opposite party No. 2 Ashok Kumar where his father Shital Prasad was sitting. The sample was sent to the public Analyst and on receiving his report, sanction was obtained and the complaint was filed. 8. The petitions No. 1143 of 1980 and 2457 of 1980 have been filed by Saeed Ahmad. The sample which was taken purported to have been manufactured by opposite party No. 4 M/s. Habib Oil Corporation, Kanpur and the sample was purchased from opposite party No. 2 Hira Lal Gupta who owned the shop and opposite party No. 3 M/s. Saraswati Traders, Lucknow. The sample which was taken purported to have been manufactured by opposite party No. 4 M/s. Habib Oil Corporation, Kanpur and the sample was purchased from opposite party No. 2 Hira Lal Gupta who owned the shop and opposite party No. 3 M/s. Saraswati Traders, Lucknow. The Petitioner Saeed Ahmad claimed that he was neither a partner of opposite party No. 3 M/s. Saraswati Traders nor of opposite party No, 4 M/s. Habib Oil Corporation, Kanpur. In support of his contention he filed the part- unship deed vide Annexure 5. The correctness of this deed has not been challenged by any of the opposite parties. It is dated July 1, 1973 and it has not been shown that there has been any other deed of partnership. Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act empowered the Magistrate to proceed against any person about whom the court was satisfied that he was concerned with that offence. The petitioner Saeed Ahmad has been summoned by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the statement of Food Inspector that he was a partner of the manufacturing firm M/s. Habib Oil Corporation, Kanpur. But the partnership deed vide Annexure-5 shows that he is not a partner and this Annexure 5 has not been challenged in the counter-affidavit of any of the opposite parties. Hence the learned Magistrate wrongly summoned the petitioner Saeed Ahmad as there is no allegation against him in the complaint, and thus there has been an abuse of the process of the Court. 9. The petitioner of these two Petitions Nos. 1143 of 1980 and 2457 of 1980 and of the other four petitions have raised a point of law that the samples in all these cases were taken either from open tins or from the sealed container by breaking their seals and that the petitioners could not be prosecuted on the basis of the samples which were taken by the Food Inspectors in that manner. 10. In Petition No. 216 of 1981 filed by M/s. Habib Oil Corporation, Kanpur, the Food Inspector said that Opposite Party No. 3 Shanti Prakash stated that he had purchased that mustard oil from Haleem and Sons. Subsequently he stated that the same oil belonged to M/s. Habib Oil Corporation, Kanpur. The Opposite Party No. 2 thus gave a contradictory statement. In Petition No. 216 of 1981 filed by M/s. Habib Oil Corporation, Kanpur, the Food Inspector said that Opposite Party No. 3 Shanti Prakash stated that he had purchased that mustard oil from Haleem and Sons. Subsequently he stated that the same oil belonged to M/s. Habib Oil Corporation, Kanpur. The Opposite Party No. 2 thus gave a contradictory statement. It is not shown by any document that Opposite Party No. 2 purchased that oil from the petitioner M/s. Habib Oil Corporation. The Food Inspector T.N. Srivastava admitted that the notice in Form 6 was not sent to the manufacturer nor it was addressed to that firm. As the Opposite Party No. 2 had informed him that it was not purchased from the manufacturer nor any receipt of the same was shown, so the petitioner M/s. Habib Oil Corporation, Kanpur has been wrongly prosecuted and there has been an abuse of the process of the Court. 11. The Petition No. 626 of 1983 has been filed by Saeed Ahmad Sharif Ahmad through their nominee Mohammad Hasan who moved an application under section 245(i), Criminal Procedure Code for being discharged as he was summoned by the learned Magistrate. In this application he alleged that a manufacturer was not liable if the sale was being conducted from an open tin vide Annexure-5, but the Court rejected his application vide Annexure 6 without considering the law on the fact that the manufacturers were Saeed Ahmad Sharif Ahmad and not Mohammad Hasan. 12. The Petition No. 215 of 1981 has been filed by M/s. Habib Oil Corporation and Mohammad Hasan in which case sample was taken from a sealed tin. 13. In all the aforesaid cases the Food Inspectors either opened the sealed tins containing the mustard oil (Omega brand) or obtained a sample from a loose tin. The contents were sent to the Public Analyst which were in violation of section 11-B of the Act and the Rule 22-A of the Rules, framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Rule 22-A lays down that where food is sealed or stocked for sale or for distribution in sealed containers having identical label declaration, the contents of one or more such containers, as may be required to satisfy the quantity prescribed in Rule 22, shall be treated to be part of the sample. The prescribed quantity of edible oil is 125 gms. The prescribed quantity of edible oil is 125 gms. Therefore the Food Inspector obtained 375 gms. or more which was divided into three portions and requisite quantity of the contents was sent to the Public Analyst. But there has been a violation of Rule 22-A read with S. 11-B of the Act in as much as the seals of the sealed tins were opened and the sealed tins themselves were not sent to the Public Analyst. It was held in the case of State of U.P. v. Nanak Chand and others, 1974 Crl. LJ 870, that where a sample was not sent for analysis in the prescribed mode as required by Rule 22-A, the person selling cannot be convicted on the basis of the analysis or the material which has been taken out of the sealed containers. The same view was held in the case of Jyoti Swaroop v. State of U.P., 1978 F.A.J. 342 and in the case of Nagar Swasthya Adhikari v. Basanti, 1979 F.A.C. 37 14. The framers of the legislature (sic) considered the wisdom of enacting Rule 22-A in framing this rule because a situation could arise that in an open container having the label of one manufacturer other articles of the same nature could be placed and sealed in the name of that manufacturer, and that is why the aforesaid law has been laid down. Of course, a situation may arise where there is only one big container, for instance some edible oil in one big tin containing several kgs of edible oil and even though it be seized, the Food Inspector cannot take it because they would not be three in numbers so that one could be sent to the Public Analyst. But we are not concerned with that situation in these cases. These petitions are, therefore, fit to be allowed. 15. All these aforesaid Petitions Nos. 1143 of 1980, 1280 of 1980, 2457 of 1980, 215 of 1981, 216 of 1981 and 626 of 1983 are allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners pending in the Lower Court under sections 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act are quashed.