P. K. BISWAS, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the accused petitioners seeking to quash the proceeding being No. 24d of 1989 pending before the learned Magistratre, 3rd Court, Town Hall, Calcutta and/or setting aside the order dated 18. 3. 94 passed by Sri K. K. Bakshi, learned Mettropolitan/municipal Magistrate, 3rd Court, Town Hall, Calcutta regarding framing of charge agsinst the accused petitioners under section 16[1][a][i] read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1955. ( 2 ) THE short facts leading to the filing to the present revisional application are as under: on 1. 8. 89, Opposite party No. 2, Food Inspector , Calcutta Municipal Corporation filed a complaint before the learned Municipal Magistrate, 3rd Court, Town Hall, Calcutta against the present petitioner under section 16[1][a][i]/7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act of 1955') and the learned Magistrate on receipt of the same, took cognizance of the alleged offence and issued process again the accused/petitioners. ( 3 ) IN the petition of complaint, it was, inter alia, alleged that on 14. 6. 88, the aforesaid Food Inspector inspected the go-down of the above-named accused and collected 750 gms of Moong (whole) from the accused No. and sent one part of the said sample to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst upon analysis opined that the sample of Moong (whole) does not conform to the prescribned standard in respect of rodent heir and excreta content and as such it was adulteratred. ( 4 ) ON receiving the summons, the petitioners appeared before the learned Magistrate and was released on bail and trial in respect of the aforesaid offence was commenced against the petitioners and some witnesses were examined. ( 5 ) IT was further alleged by the petitioners that at the time of taking sample, there was no specific specification and /or standard in appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules framed there under for Moong (whole) and upon a misconception of law and fact, the Public Analyst wrongly opined that the Moong (whole) in question was adulterated. ( 6 ) IT was further alleged by the petitioners that subsequently the standard has been fixed for moong (whole) in appendix -A 18. 06. ( 6 ) IT was further alleged by the petitioners that subsequently the standard has been fixed for moong (whole) in appendix -A 18. 06. 07 and comparing the report of the Public Analyst relating to the sample of moong (whole) which with the specification/standard for moong (whole) as laid down in Appendix -A 18. 06. 07, it would appear that the sample of moong (whole) allegedly collected by the Food Inspector, was not adulterated and was/is upto the specification/standard. ( 7 ) IT was further alleged that the report of the Public Analyst, which was the basis of the prosecution, was uncertain and incomprehensible and was not supported by any evidence and as such the same is not maintainable in law. Apart from the above provision, it has also been objected that the local Health Authority failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 9a and section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 inasmuch as no report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused. ( 8 ) IT was alleged that the sanctioning authority upon a misconception of law and fact by accepting the result of the analysis by the Public Analyst relating to the moong (whole) has mechanically accorded their consent. ( 9 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the continuance of the instant proceeding and the order dated 18. 3. 94 passed by the learned Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta, the petitioners have come up before the Court seeking for the aforesaid relief alleging that upon misconception of law and fact, the present proceeding was allowed to be continued when there was no standard/specification prescribed for an article i. e. Moong (whole) at the relevant time. ( 10 ) I have heard the learned senior counsel Sri Sekhar Basu appearing for the petitioner and also Sri Ashim Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party/state at length. ( 11 ) THE petitioner in the instant case haver challenged the continuation of the proceeding against them, firstly alleging that at the relevant time when the sample was taken, no standard for Moong (whole) was prescribed and as such as per the settled position of law, as has been enunciated by the Appex Court in several decisions, the impugned proceeding launched against them is liable to be quashed. ( 12 ) SECONDLY, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that by a subsequent Notification No. G. S. R. 281 (E) dated 29th May 1991 against Item A 18. 06. 07 when standard for moong (whole) has been prescribed, nothing has been prescribed as regards the Rodent hair excreta and even assuming the earlier Notification No. G. S. R. 938 dated 26. 5. 72 which prescribed standard for pulses and included moong (whole) in Item No. A18. 06, prohibited presence of Rodent hair and excreta more than 5 pieces per kg. and the subsequent Notification. G. S. R. No. 281 (E) dated 29. 5. 91 which clasiffied the food grains as well as pulses amongst them in Item No. A. 06. 07. prescribed strandard for Moong (whole) having omitted specification of standard of Rodent hair and excreta, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of such omission and the case against them is liable to be quashed. ( 13 ) IT has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which provides "effect of repeal", the present proceeding will not be maintainable against these petitioners. ( 14 ) THE aforesaid contentions of the petitioners, however, has been resisted by the Opposite party/state alleging, inter alia, that in the present case the adulterated article of food in question i. e. Moong Dal (whole), falls within pulses and in this connection it has further been submitted that at the relevant time i. e. on 14. 6. 88 when the sample of article in question was collected by the Food Inspector, the standard of food grains was prescribed in Item A. 18. 06 of Appendix 'b' of P. F. A. Rule and the aforesaid item included pulses as food grains. The clause V of the aforesaid item also prohibited presence of rodent hair and excreta exceeding 5 pieces per kg. of the sample and upon the ultimate analysis of the sample taken i. e. , article of food in question "moong whole" which is included in the pulses having rodent hair and excreta exceeding the permissible limit, the same should be regarded as adulterated within the meaning of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ( 15 ) IT has further been contended on behalf of the Opposite party that by notification No. G. S. R. . 281 (E) dated 29th May 1991 which omitted in item No. A 18. 06. 07 of Appendix "b" of the limit of rodent hair and excreta as regards the standard of Moong (whole) in P. F. A. . Rules cannot be said to be a beneficial provision more particularly because by way of subsequent notification No. GSR 792[e] dated 13. 12. 95; the standard "moong Whole" as regards the content of rodent hair and excreta has been inserted. ( 16 ) IT has further been contended that an article of food may be adulteratred under more than one clause to section 2 (I)- (a) of the P. F. A. Act which defines "adulteratred" and the application of one clause does not exclude the applicability of the other and in this particular case, the article of food in question, should be regarded as "adulterated" because that contained rodent hair and excreta 10 pieces per kg. , even if no minimum standard of purity was prescribed for Moong whole and the said article of food not being in nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice or not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be should be considered "adulteratred" within the meaning of section 2 (ia) (a) of the P. F. A. Act. Accordingly, it has been submitted on their behalf that those Moong whole having contained rodent hair and excreta more than the prescribed limit, the same should be regarded as "adulteratred" and as such there is no question for quashing of the present proceeding. ( 17 ) IN the instant matter, the petitioner has come up for the quashing of the proceeding mainly alleging that at the relevant time, when the sample was taken, no standard of Moong Dal was prescribed and placing their reliance on the decision reported in AIR 1966 SC 1676 in the case of M. V. Krishnan v. State of Kerala and another decision of M/s. Shyamlal and Company and Anr. v. The State and Anr. , reported in 1997 C Cr LR 70 (Cal), it has been strongly contended that the impugned prosecution against the petitioner should be quashed. v. The State and Anr. , reported in 1997 C Cr LR 70 (Cal), it has been strongly contended that the impugned prosecution against the petitioner should be quashed. ( 18 ) I have carefully gone through the aforesaid decision and in my opinion the ratio of the decision of M. V. Krishnan (supra) is clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as in the said case it was held by the Apex Court that "it will be seen from the definitions of the various products in appendix "b" to the rules, which we have already extracted, that whereever the rule making authority intended to prescribe a specific standard for the contents of a product, which definitely states so. The standards of solids-not-fat are fixed for the milk of cow, buffalo, goat or sheep. Though standards are fixed for the said milk products, in defining "skimmed milk", "deshi (cooking) butter" and "skimmed milk dahi or curd" the standard of quality is prescribed with reference to other products. But when we come to butter-milk, no standard or its contents either specifically or with reference to other items is prescribed". ( 19 ) THE appex Court in that case ultimately held that a person selling butter-milk cannot be convicted for an offence under section 16 (1) (a) (i) and section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with rule 44 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, but here, in the present case the adulterated article of food in question i. e. Moong Dal (whole) falls within the pulses and it is also clear that at the relevant time i. e. on 14. 6. 98 when the sample of article in question was collected by the Food Inspector, the standard of food grains was prescribed in item No. A. 18. 06 of Appendix "b" of P. F. A. rules. ( 20 ) FOR better appreciation of the matter in question the relevant extrct of Item No. A. 18. 06 may be quoted below: "a". 18. 06]-Food grains meant for human consumption shall be whole or broken kernels of cereals, millets and pulses. Paddy is included in food grains and shall have different limit for refractions wherever specified. Food grains meant for human consumption shall confirm to the following standards: (I ). . . . . . . . . . . . . 18. 06]-Food grains meant for human consumption shall be whole or broken kernels of cereals, millets and pulses. Paddy is included in food grains and shall have different limit for refractions wherever specified. Food grains meant for human consumption shall confirm to the following standards: (I ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (V)rodent hair and excreta.--Rodent hair and excreta shall not exceed 5 pieces per kg. of the sample. ( 21 ) SO, from the above, it is quite evident that so far as the articles of food grains are concerned, Moong Dal (whole) certainly falls within the pulses as defined above and the said article of food having contained rodent hair and excreta exceeding the permissible limit, the same should be regarded as "adulterated" within the meaning of P. F. A. Act and Rules and as such hardly there can be question of quashing of the present procdeeding of the petitioner. ( 22 ) WEST Bengal Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978 make under Essential Commodities Act in Paragraph 2 of clause (i) defined 'pulses' and the same may be quoted below for better appreciation of this case. "pulses" means urd, moong,masoor, arhar, lobia, rajmaha gram including peas or any other dal, whether whole or split, with or without husk". ( 23 ) IN this case reliance may also be placed on a decision of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity, Kanpur v. M/s. Ganga Dal Mil and Company and Ors. , reported in AIR 1984 SC 870 wherein the word 'pulses' has been interpreted by the Apex Court and the relevant portion is quoted below for better appreciation of this case: "concise Oxford Dictionary specifies the meaning of legume to be fruit, edible part, pod, or leguminous plant' vegetable used for food, and leguminous to mean like of the botanical family of pulse. And in common parlance 'pulse' connotes legume and denotes dal of legume. " ( 24 ) SO, agreeing with the contention of Mr. Ashim Roy appearing for the State/opposite Party, I am rather inclined to accept that at the relevant time standard of specification with regard to the Moong (whole) was there in the item No. A 18. 06 of Appendix "b" of P. F. A. Rules as per notification No. GSR 938 dated 26th May 1971. Ashim Roy appearing for the State/opposite Party, I am rather inclined to accept that at the relevant time standard of specification with regard to the Moong (whole) was there in the item No. A 18. 06 of Appendix "b" of P. F. A. Rules as per notification No. GSR 938 dated 26th May 1971. ( 25 ) IN view of the above position the decision of M/s. Shyamlal and Company and Anr. v. The State of West Bengal and Anr. , reported in 1997 CCr LR 70 (Cal) placed on behalf of the petitioners cannot be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as in the aforesaid decision item No. A. 18. 06 of Appendix "b" of notification No. GSR 938 dated 26th May 1971 was not taken into consideration which prescribed the standard of pulses. ( 26 ) FROM the side of the petitioner reliance has again been placed on the decision reported in 1971 Criminal Law Journal 154 in the case of Sundar Lal v. M. C. D. and in this connection it has been contended that assuming for the sake of the argument that in the earlier notification No. GSR 938 dated 26. 5. 1971 there was a provision prescribing standard for 'pulses' which also included Moong (whole) in item No. A 18. 06 and which also prohibited presence of rodent hair and excreta more than 5 pieces per kg. , yet , the subsequent notification No. GSR 281 (E) dated 29. 5. 1991, which classified the food grains as well as pulses amongst others in item No. A. 06. 07 prescribed standard for Moong (whole) having omitted specification of standard of rodent hair and excreta, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of such omission and the case against them is liable to be quashed. ( 27 ) BUT, I am unable to agree with such contentions of the petitioners as in the above decision, reported in 1971 0 Crlj 154 (supra) the prosecution was launched under P. F. A. Act since on analysis, the sample of compounded Hing was found to be adulterated due to the presence of extraneous matter of sand to the extent of 1. 05 per cent which was totally prohibited, yet, the Court in that case set aside the order of conviction on the ground that during pendency of the proceeding the standard of compounded Hing was changed by a fresh Notification and the new standard having taken away the rigors of law and being in favour of the accused it should be given retrospective operation. ( 28 ) IN coming to the aforesaid conclusion it was observed in the aforesaid decision that "in this connection reliance has been placed a Division Bench Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Syamlal v. State, 1968 ALJ 788: AIR 1968 All 392 ) where after quoting Crawford's "construction of Statute" [1940 edition] at page 599 with approval, it was observed: "the above rule of construction is based on principle that until the proceeding have reached final judgment in the Court of last resort, that Court, when it comes to announce its decision, must conform to the law then existing". It was further held:"it seems to us clear that the true rule of construction of a penal statute is that where the legislature evinces its intention to modify the law, in favour of the accused, so as to reduce the rigors of the law in the light of past experience and changed social conditions, so long as prosecution of the accused has not concluded by a judgment of conviction, the proceedings against him are regarded as inchoate and the law applicable to him would be the law as amended by the legislature. The Court trying an accused person has to take into consideration the law as it exists on the date of the judgment. It seems reasonable that an accused person cannot render himself liable to a higher punishment under a statute which has ceased to exist and has been substituted to be a new which favours him. Where the question as to go the interpretation of a penal statute is concerned, the Court must construe its provisions beneficially in regard to their applicability to the accused. It would be violating the spirit of the law and the will of the Legislature as expressed in the amending statute to sentence an accused person on the basis of the original Act which has been considered by the Legislature to be harmful and harsh against public interest. It would be violating the spirit of the law and the will of the Legislature as expressed in the amending statute to sentence an accused person on the basis of the original Act which has been considered by the Legislature to be harmful and harsh against public interest. "and ultimately it was held:"considered in the light of the above decisions we must give effect to standard of compounded Hing as it stands today. Notification No. GSR 382 date 9. 3. 1966 which substituted a new standard in place of old, must be given a retrospective operation. The result is that in case it conforms to the present standard then it cannot be said that it was adulterated". ( 29 ) BUT herein in this particular case in notification No. G. R. S. 938 dated 26th May 1971 item No. 18. 06 of appendix "b" of P. F. A. Rule which included pulses as food grains and in clause V of the said item presence of rodent hair and excreta exceeding more than five pieces per kg. of the sample was prohibited and also by subsequent notification No. GSR 281 (E) dated 29. 5. 1991 as corrected by notification No. GRS 648 (E) dated 25. 10. 91 which prescribed standard for Moong (whole) in item No. A 128. 06. 07 and changed the ingredients of the offence of adulteration in respect of Moong (whole) as regard the limit of rodent hair and excreta, yet, by subsequent Notification GSR 792 (E) dated 13. 12. 95 in clause VIII under item No. A. 18. 06. 07 the standard of moong (whole) as regard the rodent hair and excreta having been inserted prohibiting presence of rodent hair and excreta more than 5 pieces per kg. in the sample, it cannot be said that in the present case where proceeding is still pending for framing of charge, the notification No. GSR 281 (E) dated 29. 5. 91 as corrected by notification No. GSR 648 (E) dated 25. 210. 91 has any manner of application in the present case as the standard of moong (whole) as it now stands today by virtue of notification No. GSR 792 (E) dated 13. 12. 95, which prescribed the standard of Moong (whole) as regards the content of rodent hair and excreta by inserting clause VIII in item No. 18. 06. 210. 91 has any manner of application in the present case as the standard of moong (whole) as it now stands today by virtue of notification No. GSR 792 (E) dated 13. 12. 95, which prescribed the standard of Moong (whole) as regards the content of rodent hair and excreta by inserting clause VIII in item No. 18. 06. 07 has again been inserted which was earlier omitted in notificaton No. GSR 281 (E) dated 29. 5. 1991 as corrected by notification No. GSR648 (E) dated 25. 10. 91. ( 30 ) SO, in any view of the fact the aforesaid notification No. 281 (E) dated 29. 5. 91 as corrected by notification No. GSR 648 (E) dated 25. 10. 91 has no manner of application as at the relevant time of the offence in question the aforesaid notification was not in existence and at that relevant time it was notification No. GSR 938 dated 25. 5. 71, which was in existence, which also prohibited presence of rodent hair and excreta exceeding more than 5 pieces per kg. of the sample and at the present moment also, the third notification No. GSR 792 (E) dated 13. 12. 95 is in force which has also prohibited presence of rodent hair and excreta exceeding more than 5 pieces per kg. of the sample. ( 31 ) SO, in any event, the petitioner are not entitled to any benefit of the second notification No. 281 (E) dated 9. 5. 91 as corrected by notification No. GSR 648 (E) dated 25. 10. 91 and in this particular case as per the ratio of the decision reported in 1971 0 Crlj 154 (supra), no relief can be obtained by the petitioners as the standard of Moong whole, as it stands today by virtue of Notification No. GSR 792 (E) dated 13. 12. 1995, which prescribed the standard of "moong whole" as regard the content of rodent hair and excreta, by inserting; the same in clause VIII in item No. 18. 06. 07 has again been re-introduced. 12. 1995, which prescribed the standard of "moong whole" as regard the content of rodent hair and excreta, by inserting; the same in clause VIII in item No. 18. 06. 07 has again been re-introduced. ( 32 ) FURTHERMORE, the aforesaid decision of Sunderlal v. M. C. D. , reported in 1971 Cr LJ 15 4 (supra) was based on the ration laid down in the decision of Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 444 and on the strength of the aforesaid ratio, it cannot be said that the 2nd notification No. GSR 281 (E) dated 29. 5. 91 as corrected by notification No. GSR 648 (E) dated 25. 10. 91 dated 25. 10. 91 which omitted in item No. 18. 06. 07 of appendix "b" with regard to limit of rodent hair and excreta as regard the P. F. A. Rule, the standard of Moong (whole) to be a beneficial provision more particularly because when by a subsequent notification No. GSR 792 (E) dated 13. 12. 95, the standard of Moong Dal as regards Rodent hair and excreta has been inserted during the pendency of the proceedings. ( 33 ) IN view of what has been stated above, I hold that the notification No. GSR 281 (E) dated 29/5/91 as corrected by the notification No. 648 (E) dated 25. 120. 91 has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 34 ) THE position will not also be improved in connection with the instant case, even taking into consideration the provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which provided "effect of Repeal". ( 35 ) SO, upon consideration of the entire submissions made by the parties and taking in to consideration the different notification as has been discussed above, I am of the clear view that in the instant case, there is no reason for quashing of the present proceeding as has been claimed by the petitioners by filing the instant application. ( 36 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I find no merit in the contention of the petitioners and accordingly I hold that the submissions made by the petitioners are devoid of any substance. In view of the above, I hold further that the present application should be rejected and consequently, the same is being rejected. ( 36 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I find no merit in the contention of the petitioners and accordingly I hold that the submissions made by the petitioners are devoid of any substance. In view of the above, I hold further that the present application should be rejected and consequently, the same is being rejected. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the Court below with a direction to proceed with this case as expeditiously as possible. Application rejected.