JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—In this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint and other resultant proceedings ensuing therefrom, presently pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, under section 16 (1) (A) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (shortly hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 2. On May 30, 1992 at about 11.15 a.m., Shri B. L. Justa, Food Inspector, visited the shop of M/s. Diwan Chand Surinder Kumar located at Totu. He disclosed his identity and then purchased six packets of mirch kuiti each weighing about 100 grams against cash payment of Rs. 30 as a sample for analysis out of 2 kgs. packet having 20 small packets, each weighing 100 grams. Shri Diwan Chand of the aforesaid firm was conducting the business at the material time. The aforesaid commodity was kept in the shop for sale to the general public. After purchasing the article and observing the codal formalities, the aforesaid sample packets were put into three neat, clean and dry packets, labelled, wrapped into a thick paper and a paper slip bearing Code and Serial Number of Local Health Authority, Shimla-S-1/2861, was affixed with gum from bottom to top of each packet and then duly signed by the Local Health, Shimla. The signatures of the accused were taken in such a manner that it not only covered the paper slip but also its wrapper. The packets were fastened with strong thread and sealed with sealing wax and four seal impressions were put on each packet and all the knots thereof were covered with seal in the presence of S/Sh. Gopal Singh and Hem Raj (Peon). Panchnama with respect to the purchase and seizure memo etc. were prepared at the spot in the presence of the said witnesses. 3. On further inquiry, Diwan Chand aforesaid disclosed to have purchased the above said articles from the petitioner vide bill No. 1588, dated 20-12-1991. Resultantly, a notice was also sent to the petitioners firm by the Food Inspector. One part of the sample was analysed by Public Analyst, Punjab at Chandigarh by sending the same after observing codal formalities as per rule. Resultantly, a notice was also sent to the petitioners firm by the Food Inspector. One part of the sample was analysed by Public Analyst, Punjab at Chandigarh by sending the same after observing codal formalities as per rule. The Public Analyst vide his report dated July 2, 1992 found the contents of the sample containing a non-permitted oil soluble collator dye of red shade as an admixture whereas chillies powder should be free 6om added colouring matter. Thus, contents of the sample were found to be adulterated. Accordingly, the three accused, namely, Diwan Chand, his firm M/s. Diwan Chand Surinder Kumar and the petitioners were prosecuted through the complaint in question filed by the Food Inspector on 30th October, 1992. 4. The petitioners alone have assailed their prosecution in the instant case by praying for quashing of the complaint and other resultant proceedings ensuing therefrom. 5. Admittedly, firm M/s. Diwan Chand Surinder Kumar had displayed for sale packets of "Mirch Kutti" each weighing 100 grams which contained a colouring agent. The sample purchased from him by the Food Inspector is sent to the Public Analyst brought about the following analysis: "I further certify that I have caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample and declare the result of the analysis to be as follows:— Description.—The contents of the sample received in the sealed packets each printed as Mirch Kutti Ram Spices Lot No. 13 Date of Packing 13-12-1991 Date of Expiry 12-6-1992 Max. Retail Price Rs. 6.00 including of all taxes. Net Weight 100 gms when packed Raj Traders 1002 Industrial Area Chandigarh. Macro and Micro analysis = No insect detected. No mound growth. No iron filing detected. Chillies structure seen. Moisture » 9.10% by weight Total ash = 6.78% by weight Ash Insoluble in dilute Hcl = 0.70% by weight Crude-Fibre = 21.04% by weight. Non-volatile Ether Extract = 14.3% by weight. Added colour=A red oil soluble coaltar dye detected by wool dyeing, silk dyeing and by paper chromatography, and am of the opinion that : Contents of the sample contain a non-permitted oil soluble coaltar dye of red shade as an admixture whereas Chillies powder should be free from added colouring matter. Non-volatile Ether Extract = 14.3% by weight. Added colour=A red oil soluble coaltar dye detected by wool dyeing, silk dyeing and by paper chromatography, and am of the opinion that : Contents of the sample contain a non-permitted oil soluble coaltar dye of red shade as an admixture whereas Chillies powder should be free from added colouring matter. Contents of the sample are, therefore, adulterated." The aforesaid report of the Public Analyst is the basis of the complaint against the petitioners as also other co-accused, namely, Diwan Chand and firm M/s. Diwan Chand Surinder Kumar. 6. The main point for consideration in this petition is whether the aforesaid report satisfies the conscience of the Court that "coal-tar dye" (food colouring) was a non-permitted one. If not, can it form the basis for prosecuting the offenders. 7. A close examination of the Analyst report shows that no data has been given by him from which it can be inferred as to what are the contents which are unfit for human consumption and which make the commodity in question to be an adulterated one. Part VI of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 covers the subjectcolouring matter". Rule 23 specifically prohibits the addition of colouring matter to any article of food as permitted by these Rules. Rule 28 provides that coal tars (food colours) are permitted to be used which are provided in the columns in the table, which is part of the rule. So far as the red dye is concerned, there are five classes being Ponceau 4-R, Carmoisine, Fast Red E, maranth, Erythrosine, and each of them has been assigned colouring index as also chemical classification. In the instant case, the Public Analyst has opined that article contains a non-permitted oil soluble coal-tar of red shade. His opinion is based on paper Chromatography test, wool dyeing, silk dyeing tests. As regards the first test the same could not bring forward whether the coal-tar dye used was permissible or non-permissible. The ordinary dictionary meaning of Chromatography is that it is a method of separating substances in a mixture which depend on selective absorption, partition between non-mixing solvents, etc., and which present the substances as a Chromatogram, such as a series of visible bands in a verticle tube. And the word Chromatic is meant to pertain to, 01 consisting of, colours. The ordinary dictionary meaning of Chromatography is that it is a method of separating substances in a mixture which depend on selective absorption, partition between non-mixing solvents, etc., and which present the substances as a Chromatogram, such as a series of visible bands in a verticle tube. And the word Chromatic is meant to pertain to, 01 consisting of, colours. Thus, paper chromatography would reveal that there is present food colouring on coal tar dye. But on that test to conclude that it was permitted or non-permitted is rather begging the question. (See 1987 (II) Food Adulteration Cases Maya Ram v. State of Punjab, Cr. Rev. No. 705 of 1981 decided on 15th July, 1983). 8. The other two tests do not give any data nor it has been shown by these tests, whether the result was negative or positive and if so, whether the article in question was unfit for human consumption. In fact, the analysis, in his opinion, should have excluded the possibility of all the permitted colouring matter of red-shade. No such effort appears to have been made in this behalf and, thus, the report of the Public Analyst cannot be taken as gospal truth, if considering the article of food in question to be an adulterated one and outweigh normal judicial balancing. In fact, the report of the Analyst must normally be clear and un-ambiguous so that it is understandable, if not to all, atleast to sizeable section of the people who are non-experts. 9. In view of the above-said discussion, the edifice forming the foundation of the structure of the main case falls through and thus, it entitles the petitioners to the reliefs, sought for by them in the instant petition. In this view of the matter, the petition is accepted. Consequently, the complaint filed by the Food Inspector in Criminal Case No. 6-3 of 1993 against the petitioners and their co-accused, is hereby quashed on this short ground alone. 10. The petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. Order accordingly.