JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—This petition, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been moved by the petitioner for quashing the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, dated 13-5-1987 (Annexure P-D/1) since they feel aggrieved by the same. 2. The petitioner No.1 is a company, registered under the Companies Act and is carrying on the business of the manufacture of sweets, confectionary and other edible items under license issued under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It is carrying on its business in the State of Maharashtra and the registered office of the Company is at Construction House, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Bombay. Petitioner No.2 is the dealer of petitioner No.1 and further supplies the goods to wholesale dealers and petitioner No.3 is the partner of the firm known as Gupta General Store, Mahajan Bazar, Mandi, and is the whole-sale dealer in the said manufacture of petitioner No. 1 in the town of Mandi. 3. Further the case is that on 21st July, 1986, Shri S.C. Sharma, Food Inspector visited the premises of petitioner No. 3 and took a sample of hard-boiled sugar confectionary manufactured Dy petitioner No. 1. The confectionary, in fact, is contained in 1 kg. sealed packet with each crystal of hard-boiled sugar weighing 6 grams, wrapped in cellophane wrappers. The sealed polythene bag contained the following printed declaration :— "RAVALGAON SWEETS (HARD-BOILED SUGAR CONFECTIONARY) ORANGE CHERRY VARIETY : NET WT : 1 KG (INCLUSIVE OF IMMEDIATE WRAPPER) DATE OF PACKING APRIL 87 CODE NO............................... MAXIMUM PRICE Rs............................................................ (LOCAL TAXES EXTRA) ARTIFICIALLY COVERED AND ARTIFICIALLY FLAVOURED THE RAVALGAON SUGAR FARM LTD. CONSTRUCTION HOUSE WALCHAND HIRACHAND MARG BOMBAY—400 038 Factory at Ravalgaon-423108, Distt. Nasik". 3. The Food Inspector took out a few balls out of the main container and sent the same to the Chemical Analyst without sending the whole packet or atleast the covering of the packet, although the same was taken out of the whole packet since the petitioner No. 3 does not deal in any loose sale of the Confectionary. As a result of the analysis, the Public Analyst, reported as under : — 1. Labelling on 6 gm. PE package of Hard Boiled Sugar Confectionary : Ravalgaon Hard Boiled Sugar Confectionery, the name and business address of the manufacturer and extraneous addition of colouring matter is not mentioned. 2. Added colouring matter=Sun Set Yellow. 3. Sulphated ash : = 0.06%. 4. Labelling on 6 gm. PE package of Hard Boiled Sugar Confectionary : Ravalgaon Hard Boiled Sugar Confectionery, the name and business address of the manufacturer and extraneous addition of colouring matter is not mentioned. 2. Added colouring matter=Sun Set Yellow. 3. Sulphated ash : = 0.06%. 4. Ash insoluble in dil. Hcl = Nil. The name and business address of manufacturer and extraneous addition of colouring matter is not mentioned on the label of 6 gm. PE package of Hard Boiled Sugar Confectionary : whereas the contents found artificially coloured with permitted coal tar dye Sun Set yellow." 4. On the basis of this report of the Chemical Analyst, the Food Inspector filed a complaint under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 (1) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, summoned the accused to appear before him on 11-3-1987. On 27-3-1987 the petitioners moved an application for quashing of the proceedings saying that on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, no offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act had been made out. In this application it was also pointed out that each piece of hard boiled sugar confectionary contained in the 1 kg. packet was individually wrapped in a cellophane wrapper solely for the purpose of protecting each ball from deterioration or damage due to moisture etc. It was also pointed out that the sample packet was contained in a bigger container of sealed polythene packet which had not been sent to the Public Analyst and instead only a few globules of the confectionary were sent and the Public Analyst only saw the wrapper on the individual globules and did not see the main wrapper which contained these globules of confectionary. In this way, the Public Analyst was in error in reporting that the name and business address of the manufacturer and extraneous addition of colouring matter was not mentioned on the label of the 6 gm. package of hard boiled sugar confectionary where as the contents were found artificially coloured with permitted coal tar dye Sun Set yellow. 5. This plea of the petitioner has not been dealt with by the trying Magistrate since it issued the impugned order making no mention of this application. 6. package of hard boiled sugar confectionary where as the contents were found artificially coloured with permitted coal tar dye Sun Set yellow. 5. This plea of the petitioner has not been dealt with by the trying Magistrate since it issued the impugned order making no mention of this application. 6. Shri Chhabil Dass, who appears for the petitioners has very strenuously contended that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and his clients saved from harassment since the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is non-speaking and the allegations as they are, do not, at all, constitute any offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the rules made thereunder. In order to support these submissions, Shri Chhabil Dass refers to the impugned order. There is substance in this submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners had moved a specific application to the Court for the dropping of the proceedings on the basis that no offence had been committed by them. This application is available on the record of this case and it appears that the trying Magistrate did not care to see it before passing the impugned order ; Since no reference to the same has been made in the order dated 13-5-1987. Further, it is not clear from the perusal of which documents and on what grounds and evidence, the learned trying Magistrate came to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed further in the matter against the petitioners. 7. The result is that the order is thoroughly cryptic and does not disclose the application of proper judicial mind by the trying Magistrate. The same is accordingly set aside. 8. Proceeding further to examine the case on merits, it appears quite clear that the Public Analyst analysed the pieces of the hard boiled sugar confectionery of 6 gms. weight wrapped in separate covers whereas the package, which contained 1 kg. weight of the same, was not sent to the Public Analyst. Under section 2 (x) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, "Package" is defined as under :— "package" means a box, bottle, casket, tine, barrel, case, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article or food is placed or packed ;" 9. For the purpose of "package" therefore, the package in this case would definitely be Polythene bag of 1 kg. For the purpose of "package" therefore, the package in this case would definitely be Polythene bag of 1 kg. weight from which the sample of hard boiled sugar confectionery was purchased It was this package which had the label of specifications of the name of business address as well as other requirements necessary to be mentioned in this regard It appears that this package was not transmitted to the Public Analyst with the result that the report in the present case has been made and the individual wrapper has been taken to be a package within the meaning of section 2 (x) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The requirement of label under Rule 32 Explanation 1, is :— "The term label means a display of written, printed, perforated, stencilled, embossed or stamped matter upon the container (cover laid and/or crown cork) of any food package." 10. This label also finds mention on the package that has been used by the petitioners as a package in the present case and the same meets all the requirements of the statutory provisions in this behalf. 11. My attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court, namely, M/s. Gopi Nath and Sons v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, 1981 Cr LJ 175, where the facts were quite similar to those in the present case. In "this case also, the petitioner had moved this Court for the quashing of the proceedings under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. alleging, inter alia, that 900 gms. of Toffees which were sold to the Food Inspector were taken out of the sealed packages sold by the petitioner to firm M/s. Goel Provision Stores, Parwanoo, and the package contained the label with specifications printed thereon. So, the Toffees out of the main sealed packet were sold and the package which contained the total quantity of the same was not supplied. This sample was analysed not as hard boiled sugar confectionery but as Toffees and the standard applicable for toffees and not hard boiled sugar confectionery was applied by the Public Analyst while determining its quality and purity. The Food Inspector had also admitted in his statement that the sample purchased was out of a sealed package and the said sealed package at that time contained a label bearing printed specifications. The Food Inspector had also admitted in his statement that the sample purchased was out of a sealed package and the said sealed package at that time contained a label bearing printed specifications. This label clearly indicated that the contents were hard boiled sugar confectionery and not toffees. It was observed that the variation in the report was due to the wrong application of standard otherwise the container clearly indicated that the contents were hard boiled sugar confectionery and the standard applicable for hard boiled sugar confectionery had to be applied in order to find out if it was adulterated or otherwise. The learned Judge, thus, held that the article having been analysed by application of a different standard the conclusion that it was adulterated could not be accepted. As to the other aspect, it was held that the label was there on the package and contained all the specifications and particulars as required. In this case also, each of the sugar balls had been wrapped in some cover and the name or the business address of the manufacturer had not been mentioned on each of such covers and on that account the Public Analyst had remarked that the name or business address of the manufacturer was not mentioned on the label. As a matter of fact, the facts of this case, as already stated, are identical and the view that has been taken is squarely supported by this decision. This decision has been followed by the High Court of Delhi in a similar case of this firm reported in 1983 (1) FAC 249, Baku Bali Gulab Chand and others v. Delhi Administration. 12. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the petitioners have not committed the offence they are being tried for and in view of the existing statutory provisions, it can be safely said that it is a lame prosecution and cannot be allowed to continue in the interest of justice. 13. Accordingly, there is merit in this petition the same is allowed and the proceedings in case No. 365-1/87-III/86 under section 16 (1) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, are hereby quashed and set aside. Petition allowed.