A. L. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. K. H. Parekh for the petitioners and Mr. Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Rule. Mr. Trivedi waives service of Rule. ( 2 ) MR. Parekh has started with a submission that the impugned complaint is an outcome of the mistaken impression of the provision of law as it existed then and, therefore, the petition. ( 3 ) THE petition arises out of a complaint lodged by Food Inspector before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar, in Criminal Case No. 2211 of 1999, against the petitioners, who are dealing in soup powder under the brand name "knorr" manufactured by Corn Produces Company (India) Limited, Mumbai. On 10th April, 1997, the Food Inspector visited one shop Navendra Faganmal in presence of Jairambhai Devumal, collected samples of three tomato soup powder of "knorr" brand after following due procedure as prescribed by law. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst and the Public Analyst gave a report to the effect that the sample contained synthetic colours not permissible under law and, therefore, the sample did not conform to the prescribed standards. After obtaining consent under Section 20, the complaint came to be lodged. ( 4 ) MR. Parekh has taken this Court through the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 28 and 29. He submitted that, according to Rule 28, carmosine and sunset yellow are synthetic food colours which are permissible to be used. He has taken this Court through Rule 29 as it exists today which does not include in the list the soup power. He has drawn attention of this Court to to earlier provision before amendment which was made in 1994 wherein soup powder was in the list but by the amendment in 1994 came to be deleted from the Rule. However, although the amendment was made in 1994, its implementation by publication in Gazette was deferred from time to time by issuance of notifications. He has shown various notifications to the Court to indicate that, ultimately, the amendment came into force from 1st January, 1998. Till then, the implementation period was extended from time to time by issuance of various notifications which can be enumerated as under :- @@@ _________________________________________________________ Date of No. of Provision Date till which notifi- notifi- use of synthe- cation cation tic colours permitted in soup powder. 6. 9. Till then, the implementation period was extended from time to time by issuance of various notifications which can be enumerated as under :- @@@ _________________________________________________________ Date of No. of Provision Date till which notifi- notifi- use of synthe- cation cation tic colours permitted in soup powder. 6. 9. 94 GSR 677 (E) The item of soup powder was 6. 9. 1995 intended to be deleted from the list of food items in or upon which synthetic food colours could be used. It was to come into effect after one year from the date of notification. 4. 9. 95 GSR 613 (E) The words one year were sub- stituted by the words two 6. 6. 1996 years and three months. 4. 6. 96 GSR 232 (E) The words one year and nine 6. 12. 1996 months were substituted by the words two years and three months. 4. 12. 96 GSR 553 (E) The words two years and 6. 6. 1997 three months were substi- tuted by the words two years and nine months. 4. 6. 97 GSR 304 (E) Use of synthetic food 6. 12. 1997 colours was permitted in soup powder for the period upto and inclusive of 31. 12. 1997. As a result, till 31. 12. 1997, synthetic colours as enumerated in Rule 28 prior to amendment of 1994 were permissible to be used in the product in question, viz. soup powder. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the sample was drawn, in the instant case, on 10th April, 1997 and, therefore, notification No. GSR 553 (E) dated 4/12/1996 was in operation which indicated that the implementation of the amendment was extended upto 6. 6. 1997 which again came to be extended upto 31. 12. 1997. Under the circumstances, the complaint cannot be sustained. It seems the complaint is lodged in ignorance of these notifications. ( 6 ) MR. Trivedi has placed on record a communication received by him from the Food Inspector. The Food Inspector has enclosed a clarification from the Public Analysts office at Rajkot, who had issued an earlier report in question which also conforms to the above proposition. Under the circumstances, the complaint deserves to be quashed by allowing the petition. ( 7 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The complaint being Criminal Case No. 2211 of 1999 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Jamnagar, is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. .