Judgment 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., filed by the accused petitioners, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon. 2. Facts which are relevant for the decision of the present petition are that Food Inspector along with District Health Officer inspected the premises of Sudesh Kumar at Garhshankar on 24-7-1998 and he was found in possession of 25 packets of 1 kg. Tata Iodised salt, bearing batch No. 16, packed in May 1998. Food Inspector purchased 3 packets of Tata salt from Sudesh Kumar, who had purchased the said Tata salt from M/s. Ajit Singh Om Parkash Limited. After taking aforesaid sample, one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh. vide report dated 27-8-1998, copy Annexure P2, it was reported by the Public Analyst that the product had not been labelled in accordance with Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and as such it was a misbranded product. The petitioners had been duly informed about the said report of the Public Analyst. Thereupon, Food Inspector filed a criminal complaint under Section 16 of the Act, copy Annexure P7. Aggrieved against the said criminal complaint, petitioners filed the present petition, under Section 482 Cr. P.C. in this Court, seeking quashment of the said complaint on the ground that the same was illegal and not maintainable against the petitioners. Inter alia, it was alleged that the product i.e. Tata Iodised salt was not found to be adulterated or unfit for human consumption by the Public Analyst and on the other hand it was found to be misbranded for which the petitioners were not responsible and only the manufacturing company could be held liable for the same. It was accordingly prayed that the complaint be quashed. 3. During the course of arguments, Public Analyst was summoned to explain as to how the product was found to be misbranded. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. Learned counsel for the accused petitioners has submitted that the criminal complaint is liable to be quashed as there is nothing in the complaint to show as to how the product was misbranded. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. Learned counsel for the accused petitioners has submitted that the criminal complaint is liable to be quashed as there is nothing in the complaint to show as to how the product was misbranded. It has been submitted that as per the report of Public Analyst, there was contravention of Rule 32 of the Rules, as complete list of ingredients in descending order of composition had not been given. It was submitted that it was only salt and there was no occasion for giving the list of ingredients in descending order. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted before me that under Rule A. 15.01 of Appendix B of the Rules, the composition of Iodised salt had been given and that as per Rule 32 (b) of the Rules, then names of ingredients used in the product in descending order of their composition are required to be given and non-mentioning of the same would amount to misbranding. Rule A. 15.01 of Appendix B. attached with the Rules gives the composition of iodised salt as under :- "[A. 15.01.-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- Not less than 30 parts per (a) Manufacture level 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 aluminium 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.]" 6. A perusal of the above would show that iodised salt should contain Sodium Chloride not less than 96 per cent by weight on dry basis and matter insoluble in water not more than 1 per cent by weight on dry basis and matter soluble in water other than Sodium Chloride not more than 3.0 per cent by weight on dry basis. Besides that, it was also required to contain iodine content not less than 30 parts per million on dry weight basis at manufacture level and not less than 15 parts per million on dry weight basis at distribution channel including retail level. Besides that, table iodised sale may also contain aluminium silicate as an anticaking agent to a maximum extent of 2.0 per cent by weight and in such case the total matter insoluble in water 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. Rule 32 of the Rules reads as under :- "Package of food to carry a label.- Every package of food shall carry a label and unless otherwise provided in these rules, there shall be specified on every label:- (a) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (b) the names of ingredients used in the product in descending order of their composition by weight or volume as the case may be: Provided that xxxxx x xx x x x x x x" 7. From a perusal of the above, it would be clear that every package of food is required to carry a label and every label should specify the names of ingredients used in the product in descending order of their composition by weight or volume, as the case may be. 8. In the present case, admittedly the composition of Tata Iodised Salt had not been mentioned in the wrapper/label and the question of mentioning the same in descending order did not arise. Prima facie, this amounts to infringement of Rule 32 of the Rules. 8. In the present case, admittedly the composition of Tata Iodised Salt had not been mentioned in the wrapper/label and the question of mentioning the same in descending order did not arise. Prima facie, this amounts to infringement of Rule 32 of the Rules. Under Section 2(ix) "misbranded" has been defined to the effect that an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded- (a) to (j) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (k) if it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or Rules made thereunder:" Since the product had not been labelled in accordance with requirements of Rule 32 of the Rules, prima facie, it could be said that it amounted to "misbranded" under Section 16 of the Act. Under Section 16 of the Act "misbranding" is one of the offences punishable under the said Section. 9 In view of the above, in my opinion, no case for quashing the criminal complaint or subsequent proceedings taken thereon is made out. 10. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this petition the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that anything stated above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.