C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by a2 and A3 in CC No. 168 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the VII Metropolitan magistrate, Visakhapatnam, to quash those proceedings. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 22-9-2000, at about 6. 30 p. m. , the Food inspector, Visakhapatnam District along with attender and panchas visited the shop of devarakota Nagaraju (A1), who is doing business under the name and style of srinivasa Kirana and General Stores , and lifted samples of sealed packets of glucovita (Glucose-D), which were kept for sale, after purchasing the same in the presence of mediators, and prepared samples as per the procedure prescribed in the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (The Act) and the rules made thereunder and sent a sample for analysis. The report, received from the Public Analyst, showed that the sample did not conform to the standards of Glucose and the total dye content, and contains sucrose and hence it is adulterated. Therefore, he filed a charge sheet against the said Devarakota Nagaraju and the petitioners, the suppliers of the stock of Glucose, which was lifted from the shop of A-l. ( 3 ) THE contention of Sri E. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that prosecution against the petitioners under the Act is not sustainable - firstly because there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners supplied the offending stock to A-l and in fact in the Panchanama prepared at the time of lifting the samples it is clearly stated that A-l vendor did not produce the source of supply bill, and since column No. 9 of the annexure relating to any other additional information relevant to the case it is mentioned the vendor is not having PFA. Licence and a small vendor ; and so it is clear that procedure prescribed by Section 14-A of the Act is not followed and secondly because the sample lifted is proprietary food. In support of his second contention, he relied on Messrs hindustan Lever Limited v. The Food inspector, 2003 (1) FAC 112 and Corn products Company, Bombay v. Food inspector, Tirunelveli Municipality, tirunelveli, 1993 (1) PFA Cases 157. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned Additional Public prosecutor. In support of his second contention, he relied on Messrs hindustan Lever Limited v. The Food inspector, 2003 (1) FAC 112 and Corn products Company, Bombay v. Food inspector, Tirunelveli Municipality, tirunelveli, 1993 (1) PFA Cases 157. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned Additional Public prosecutor. ( 5 ) IN Hindustan Lever case (supra) samples of instant dairy whitener a partly skimmed milk powder (Milkana) were lifted. The report of the public analyst showed that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed for skimmed milk powder . Repelling the contentions on behalf of the Food Inspector that in view of Rule 37a of the rules framed under the act, approval of Government of India is required to manufacture such product and holding that no prosecution in regard to an article for which no standards have been laid would be maintainable by applying the standards of other articles, the Supreme court quashed the prosecution against the manufacturer of the partly skimmed milk power (Milkana ). In Corn Products cases (supra) samples of Glucovita (Glucose-D), an admixture of three constituent elements was lifted and the public analyst found that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed for dextrose with respect of sulphate and consequently was adulterated. So prosecution was launched against the vendor and manufacturer of the product whose sample was sent for analysis by the Food Inspector. In a petition to quash the prosecution filed by the manufacturer of the product a learned single Judge of Madras High Court held that the products Glucovita (Glucose-D) is a proprietary food and so the manufacturer and seller of a proprietary food would be liable for punishment only if the proprietary food manufactured or sold is not satisfying the conditions prescribed in sub clauses (a) to (c) and (h) of the sub-clause (ia) of section 2 of the Act. ( 6 ) IN this case it is not necessary to see if the above two decisions apply to the facts of this case or not since A-1 did not produce any record to show that the stock out of which the samples were lifted by the food Inspector was purchased from the petitioners and since A-l was not having pfa. Licence and is a small vendor. Licence and is a small vendor. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are the manufacturers of the product that was being sold by A-l and so the prosecution against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in CC. 168 of 2002 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, visakhapatnam against the petitioners are quashed.