Judgment 1. This is a petition under Section 428 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused petitioner M/s. Ram Dhan Rikhi Ram, through its sole proprietor Mr. Ranjit Lal Khanna, seeking the quashment of the criminal complaint under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In the petition it was alleged that on 10-12-1998 a sample of Iodine Areal Super Fine Salt was taken by the Food Inspector from Ranjit Lal Khanna, proprietor of the petitioner firm for analysis and after receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, a complaint was instituted in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. It was alleged that no offence whatsoever was made out against the petitioner and no complaint could be filed nor its cognizance could be taken by the trial Magistrate. It was alleged that the accused was protected under Section 19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Rule 12-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It was alleged that the article was purchased from M/s. Durga Dutt Sunil Dutt, manufacturers of the said salt (accused No. 2 in the criminal complaint) and that the packet had the label of said manufacturer which amounted to a warranty under Rule 12-A of the said Rules. It was alleged that in the spot memo, copy Annexure P-3, it was specifically mentioned by the Food Inspector that the packet of the Iodine sale was alleged to have been purchased from Durga Dutt Sunil Dutt, manufacturers of the Iodine Salt, vide bill No. 86 dated 26-11-1998. Copy of the said bill was attached as Annexure P4 with the present petition. It was alleged that the only fault found by the Public Analyst in his report was that the product had not been labelled as per provisions of Rule 32 of the abovesaid Rules, as complete list of ingredients had not been given. It was alleged that the petitioner could not be held liable for the same and only manufacturer was liable for the same. It was alleged that otherwise sample of Iodine salt conformed to the standards laid down in this regard. 2. It was alleged that the petitioner could not be held liable for the same and only manufacturer was liable for the same. It was alleged that otherwise sample of Iodine salt conformed to the standards laid down in this regard. 2. In the written reply filed by Shri Sukhrao Singh, Government Food Inspector, it was alleged that on 10-12-1998, sample was taken from Ranjit Lal Khanna, petitioner for analysis and that one part of the sample was sent to Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh for analysis, who had reported that the product had not been labelled in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules, as complete list of ingredients in descending order of their composition had not been given and as such the product was mis-branded. It was alleged that on the basis of the said report of the Public Analyst, criminal complaint was filed. It was admitted that accused No. 1 namely Ranjit Lal Khanna had handed over bill of Durga Dutt Sunil Dutt, manufacturer of the Idoine salt, to the Food Inspector and had also told him that he had purchased the product from the said manufacturer and this fact was also incorporated in the spot memo. It was alleged that the petitioner can take benefit of Section 19 of the said Act and Rule 12-A of the said Rules only after proving the same during trial and no case for quashing the criminal complaint was made out. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 4. At the time of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inadvertently the present petition was filed on behalf of M/s. Ram Dhan Rikhi Ram through its sole proprietor Ranjit Lal Khanna. It was submitted that in fact the present petition should have been filed by Ranjit Lal Khanna on behalf of M/s. Ram Dhan Rikhi Ram, being its sole proprietor. This prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner appears to be quite genuine. Accordingly, it is directed that the present petition shall be taken to have been filed by Ranjit Lal Khanna, sole proprietor of Ram Dhan Rikhi Ram instead of M/s. Ram Dhan Rikhi Ram having filed the (sic) petition through its sole proprietor Ranjit Lal Khanna. 5. This prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner appears to be quite genuine. Accordingly, it is directed that the present petition shall be taken to have been filed by Ranjit Lal Khanna, sole proprietor of Ram Dhan Rikhi Ram instead of M/s. Ram Dhan Rikhi Ram having filed the (sic) petition through its sole proprietor Ranjit Lal Khanna. 5. As referred to above, it has not been disputed on behalf of the respondent that even at the time when the Food Inspector had taken the sample, accused petitioner had informed the Food Inspector that he had purchased the packet of the Iodine salt from the manufacturer, vide bill No. 86 dated 26-11-1998, and had handed over a copy thereof to the Food Inspector and this fact was incorporated in the spot memo Annexure P-3. Copy of the said bill has been attached as Annexure P4. 6. Section 19 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 provides that a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or mis-branded article of food if he proves that he had purchased article of food from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form and that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he had sold it in the same state as he purchased it. Rule 12-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, provides that every manufacturer, distributor or dealer selling an article of food to a vendor shall give either separately or in the bill, cash memo or label, a warranty. In the present case, it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner had not sold the article of food to the Food Inspector in the same State in which he had purchased it from the manufacturer or that while in his possession he had not properly stored it. The only question that comes up for consideration is as to whether present petitioner can take benefit of Section 19 (2) of the Act and Rule 12-A of the Rules. The only question that comes up for consideration is as to whether present petitioner can take benefit of Section 19 (2) of the Act and Rule 12-A of the Rules. In P. Unnikrishnan V/s. Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality, Kerala State, (1996) 2 FAC 25 , it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that taking into consideration Section 19 (2) alongwith Rule 12-A what is necessary for the accused to show is that he has purchased the article from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form. In the reported case, admittedly there was a bill, Exhibit D1, which contained the warranty. Further, it was also the admitted case that the tin purchased from the alleged manufacturer was sold to the Food Inspector in the same form and in the same condition. Under these circumstances, it was held by the Hon"ble Supreme Court that requirements of Section 19 (2) read with Rule 12-A were satisfied in the said case, for the purpose of defence taken by the accused. In Amar Chand V/s. State of Punjab, (1984) 1 PFAC 167 (Punj and Har), while placing reliance on Section 14 of the Act, it was held by this Court that a bill, cash memo or invoice in respect of sale of any article of food given by manufacturer or distributor or dealer to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be warranty given by such manufacturer, dealer or distribution. In the reported case, the accused had placed reliance on the photostat copy of the cash memo issued by the manufacturer which indicated that packets containing chilli powder were sold to the accused petitioners. It was held that the accused petitioner had purchased chilli powder under legal and valid warranty. While coming to this conclusion, the provisions of Rule 12-A of the Rules were also considered. 7. In view of the law laid down by this Court and by the Hon"ble Supreme Court, in the above mentioned authorities, in my opinion, the criminal complaint and the subsequent proceedings taken thereon would be an abuse of process of the Court, inasmuch as it could not be said that the accused petitioner had committed any offence, as he was saved under the provisions of Section 19 of the Act read with Rule 12-A and Rule 14. 8. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed and the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon against present petitioner Ranjit Lal Khanna, sole proprietor of Ram Dhan Rikhi Ram, are hereby quashed.