Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint, under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and all subsequent proceedings, taken thereon. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 15.12.1998, the Food Inspector along with the District Health Officer, had inspected the premises of Ahand Salt Company, Jalandhar, where accused-petitioner, Baldev Singh, was found present and he disclosed that he was the Proprietor of M/s Anand Salt Company, Jalandhar. At that time, accused, Baldev Raj, petitioner, was having about 3200 packets/pouches of iodized Anand Super Salt of 1 kg each; meant for sale to the public, for human consumption. At that time, one Tilak Raj was joined as witness. The Food Inspector, after serving due notice upon accused, Baldev Raj, purchased three polythene packets/pouches of iodized Anand Super Salt of 1 kg each, on payment against receipt. The three packets were separately sealed, as per Rules and spot-memo was prepared. One sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, along with a memo on Form VII, through special messenger, while the remaining two samples were deposited with the local Health Authority, Jalandhar. As per the report of the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, he had opined that the product had been declared on label as "Shudh Edible Salt", in Hindi, whereas under Rule 43 of the Rules, label of salt containing potassium iodate should not contain any words, which might imply the product as "pure". As such, the product was misbranded. It was alleged that in this manner, the accused had contravened the provisions of the Act and the Rules, framed thereunder. Accordingly, the Food Inspector, filed criminal complaint against Baldev Raj, petitioner, as accused No. 1, M/s Anand Salt Company, Delhi, as accused No. 2 and M/s Trimurti Salt Manufacturing Company as accused No. 3. On filing of the complaint, the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioner as accused in the aforesaid complaint. Accordingly, the Food Inspector, filed criminal complaint against Baldev Raj, petitioner, as accused No. 1, M/s Anand Salt Company, Delhi, as accused No. 2 and M/s Trimurti Salt Manufacturing Company as accused No. 3. On filing of the complaint, the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioner as accused in the aforesaid complaint. Baldev Raj, petitioner, has filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings, taken thereon, inter-alia alleging therein that Rule 43 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, did not apply in the case of sweets, confectionery, biscuits, bakery products, processed fruits, areated waters, vegetables and flavouring agents, as per Rule 43(5) of the aforesaid Rules. It was alleged that the salt was a flavouring agent. 3. In the written reply, filed by the Food Inspector, it was alleged that under Rule 43(1) of the Rules, no label, for article of food, could contain any words, which might imply that the food was "pure". It was further alleged that the iodized salt did not come within the category of flavouring agents. It was alleged that on the label of the packets of iodized salt, it was mentioned "Sudh Khadya Namak" in Hindi and as such, the label contravened the provisions of Rule 43 of the aforesaid Rules. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. Rule 43(1) and (5) of the aforesaid Rules reads as under :- (1) Every advertisement and every price or trade list or label for an article of food which contains an addition, admixture or deficiency shall describe the food as containing such addition, admixture or deficiency and shall also specify the nature and quantity of such addition, admixture or deficiency. No such advertisement or price or trade list or label attached to the container of the food shall contain any words which might imply that the food is pure; (Provided that for the purpose of this rule the following shall not be deemed as an admixture or an addition, namely - (a) salt in butter or margarine; (b) vitamins in food) xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (5) Nothing contained in the rule shall apply in the case of sweets, confectionery, biscuits, bakery products, processed fruits, aerated waters, vegetables and flavouring agents." Rule 63 of the Rules reads as under :- "3. Flavouring agents. Flavouring agents. - Flavouring agents include flavour, substances, flavour extracts or flavour preparations, which are capable of imparting flavouring properties, namely taste or odour or both to food. Flavouring agents may be of following three types :- (A) Natural Flavours and Natural Flavouring Substances :- "Natural flavours" and "Natural flavouring substances" are flavour preparations and single substance respectively, acceptable for human consumption, obtained exclusively by physical processes from vegetable, sometimes animal raw materials either in their natural state or processed, for human consumption. (B) Nature Indentical Flavouring Substances :- Nature identical flavouring substances are substances chemically isolated from aromatic raw materials or obtained synthetically; they are chemically identical to substances present in natural products intended for human consumption, either processed or not. (C) Artificial Flavouring Substances :- Artificial flavouring substances are those substances which have not been identified in natural products intended for human consumption either processed or not." 6 The definition of iodized salt given in Clause A.15.01 of Appendix `B to the Rules, reads as under :- "Iodised salt means a crystalline solid, white or pale, pink or light grey in colour, free from contamination with clay, grit and other extraneous adulterants and impurities. It shall conform to the following standards, namely : Moisture : Not more than 6.0 per cent by weight of the undried sample. Sodium Chloride (NaCl) : Not less than 96.0 per cent by weight on dry basis. Matter insoluble in water. : Not more than 1.0 per cent by weight on dry basis. Matter soluble in water other than Sodium Chloride : Not more than 3.0 per cent by weight on dry basis. Iodine content : at - (a) Manufacture level : Not less than 30 parts per million on dry weight basis. (b) Distribution channel including retail level : Not less than 15 parts per million on dry weight basis. Provided that table iodised salt may contain aluminum silicate as an anticaking agent to a maximum extent of 2.0 per cent by weight : Provided further that the total matter insoluble in water in such case shall not exceed 2.2 per cent and sodium chloride content on dry basis shall not be less than 97.0 per cent by weight." 7. In the present case, the Food Inspector had taken the sample of iodized salt in the form of packets, containing iodized Anand Super Salt, packed in polythene packets. In the present case, the Food Inspector had taken the sample of iodized salt in the form of packets, containing iodized Anand Super Salt, packed in polythene packets. Annexure P1 is the report of the Public Analyst. As per the said report, the sample of iodized salt was according to the prescribed standard. However, the only infirmity found by the Public Analyst, was that :- "The product has been declared on label as "Shudh Khadya Namak" in Hindi, whereas, under the provisions of Rule 43, the label of salt, containing potassium iodate, should not contain any words, which might imply the product is pure. The product is, therefore, misbranded." 8. From a perusal of the above, it would be clear that as per the Public Analyst, the sample was according to the prescribed standard. However, the only infirmity found by the Public Analyst, was that on the label, the iodized salt was declared as "Shudh Khadya Namak" in Hindi, whereas, as per Rule 43 of the Rules, the label should not contain any words which might imply that the product is pure. 9. It is not doubt true that under Rule 43(1) of the Rules, there is prohibition that the labels, on the article of food, which contain an addition, admixture or deficiency, should not contain any words, which might imply that the food was pure. However, as per Rule 43(5) of the Rules, this prohibition shall not apply in the case of sweets, confectionery, bakery products, processed fruits, aerated waters, vegetables and flavouring agents. Thus, if iodized salt was a flavouring agent, the prohibition, contained in Rule 43(1) would not apply to the case of iodized salts. Under Rule 63 of the Rules, Flavouring Agents have been defined. There are three types of Flavouring Agents, namely Natural Flavours and Natural Flavouring Substances, Nature Identical Flavouring Substances and Artificial Flavouring Substances. From a perusal of the definition of Flavouring Agents, given in Rule 63 of the Rules, it would be clear that the iodized salt is a Flavouring Agent. As per Rule 63 of the Rules, Flavouring Agents, include Flavouring Substances, Flavour Extracts or Flavour Preparations, which are capable of imparting flavour properties, namely taste or odour or both to food. So far as the iodized salt is concerned, if iodized salt is put in any food article, it would certainly change the taste of the said article of food. So far as the iodized salt is concerned, if iodized salt is put in any food article, it would certainly change the taste of the said article of food. Under the circumstances, it could certainly be said that the iodized salt is a flavouring agent. From a perusal of Rule 63 of the rules, it could not be said that the iodized salt, defined in Clause A.15.01 of Appendix B of the Rules, is not a flavouring agent. 10. Once it is found that the iodized salt is a flavouring agent, it would be clear that the prohibition, contained in Rule 43(1) of the Rules, prohibiting the use of words on the label, which might imply that the foods is pure, would have no application in the case of iodized salt. That being so, in my opinion, it could not be said that the sample of iodized salt was in any manner misbranded. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the filing of the criminal complaint and the continuation of proceedings, would amount to abuse of the process of law. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed and the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings, taken thereon, against the petitioner are hereby quashed.