AKSHAY H. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS application has been filed by one of the original accused of Criminal Case no. 613 of 2000 pending on the file of learned chief Judicial Magistrater Amreli, wherein, he and other accused have been tried for the offences made punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act,. 1. 1. The record of the application shows that the applicant is an Editor of the well known newspaper published in English language namely "the Times of India". Aforesaid complaint has been filed against the editor and other original accused under the provisions of the Act for the violation of rule 37-D of the Prevention of Food adulteration Rules, ("rules" for short ). The allegation against it, is that the advertisement that had appeared in the said newspaper dated 20th March, 2000, was against the provisions of Rule 37-D. The advertisement was as follows :- "families across the globe trust corn oil because they care for their health. Goldcorn Dewaxed Refined Corn Oil. Modern life is plagued with dreadful diseases and stress. The problem of high cholesterol and cardiac failure are common place. A little care about eating habits can do wonders to your health. Especially in choosing the cooking medium. Corn Oil is preferred the world over for its healthy properties. It has high content of poly Unsaturated Fatty Acids, no cholesterol and also helps prevent cholesterol formation. All the health benefits of corn oil now come to you in GOLDCORN. Manufactured in state of the art plant by your trusted manufacturer of tirupati Cotton Seed Oil, N. K. Proteins Ltd. "1. 2. In the opinion of the complainant i. e. the Food Inspector attached to the Foods and Drugs Control Department at Amreli circle, Amreli, such advertisement was objectionable and against the provisions of the Act and Rules in particular Rule 37-D of the Rules. He, therefore, thought it fit to lodge a complaint against the Directors of the manufacturing company and the Editor of The Times of India" for having committed offence as stated above, after obtaining necessary consent under Section 20 (1) of the Act. He, therefore, thought it fit to lodge a complaint against the Directors of the manufacturing company and the Editor of The Times of India" for having committed offence as stated above, after obtaining necessary consent under Section 20 (1) of the Act. ( 2 ) THE applicant submitted an application seeking discharge before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amreli, on the ground that considering the provisions of the Act, and in particular, section 7 read with Rule 37-D, no offence had been committed by the applicant. This application came to be allowed by the learned Magistrate by Judgment and order dated 27th March, 2001 and prayer for discharge from the proceedings was granted in favour of the applicant. 2. 1. Against the said order, the State of Gujarat preferred a revision application through the concerned Food Inspector and the said Criminal Revision Application was numbered as 51 of 2001. The learned sessions Judge allowed the Criminal revision Application and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and directed that the applicant be prosecuted and he be tried in the present case. It is this judgment and order of the learned sessions Judge which are being challenged in the present proceedings before this court. ( 3 ) I have gone through the record of this application and the submission of the learned advocate of rival parties. The allegation against the applicant is that by publishing aforesaid advertisement in the "the Times of India" he had contravened the provisions of Rule 37-D of the Rules and consequently he has committed offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the act. It is. therefore, necessary to refer to the said Rule. Rule 37-D reads as under ; 37-D1 LABELLING OF EDIBLE OILS and FATS the package, label or the advertisement of edible oils and fats shall not use the expressions "super - Refined". "extra Refined". "microrefined". "double refined". "ultra - Refined". anti-Cholesterol". "cholesterol Fighter". "soothing to Heart". "cholesterol Friendly". "saturated Fat Free", or such other expressions which are an exaggeration of the quality of the Product. "3. "extra Refined". "microrefined". "double refined". "ultra - Refined". anti-Cholesterol". "cholesterol Fighter". "soothing to Heart". "cholesterol Friendly". "saturated Fat Free", or such other expressions which are an exaggeration of the quality of the Product. "3. 1, It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that if Section, 7 is closely perused, it says that no person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale or store, sell or distribute (v) any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this act or of any rule made thereunder. It is further submitted that the present applicant is neither manufacturer nor a person who has stored, nor he is connected with activity of sale distribution etc. He has merely published this advertisement for sale and. therefore, it cannot be prosecuted. 3. 2. Since in the instant case, we are concerned with "advertisement", it is necessary to find out what is meant by expression "advertisement". This expression is not defined in the Act or the Rules, but some clue to the said expression can be had from the Rules themselves. Rule 43-A deals with restriction on advertisement, which is reproduced as below :- "43-A RESTRICTION ON advertisement: there shall be no advertisement of any food which is misleading or contravening the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 or the Rules made thereunder. " [explanation : The term "advertisement" means any visible representation or announcement made, " (by means of any light sound, smoker gas, print, electronic media internet or website) ]. 3. 3. It appears from the Act as well as Rule, that Rule 37-D was introduced on the Statute Book in the year 1999, i. e. 5th april, 1999. Rule 43-A as it stood then is as under :- "43-A : RESTRICTION ON advertisement: there shall be no advertisement of any food which is misleading or contravening the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, or the rules made thereunder. " [explanation : The, term "advertisement" means any visible representation or announcement made by means of any light, sound, smoke or gas], ( 4 ) THE aforesaid Rule 43-A came to be amended with effect from 28th August, 2002. " [explanation : The, term "advertisement" means any visible representation or announcement made by means of any light, sound, smoke or gas], ( 4 ) THE aforesaid Rule 43-A came to be amended with effect from 28th August, 2002. If Rule 43-A as amended as well as unamended are compared, in the unamended Rule word "print" was not there and it came to be added subsequently by way of amendment on 28th August, 2002. This advertisement was in printed form in the newspaper "the Times of India" published fay the applicant. The offence is alleged to have taken place in the year, 2000, meaning thereby, when the advertisement was published in the newspaper words "print"etc. , were not on the Statute book and the publication of such advertisement in the newspaper could not be said to be an offence. If at the time when the complaint came to be filed, the act of applicant was not an offence, by virtue of the subsequent amendment, bringing such act within the ambit of an offence cannot make the applicant liable of committing such offence because of prohibition against retrospective criminal law imposed by Article 20 (1) of Constitution of india. If that be so, the present case against the complainant cannot be allowed to proceed further as it will be merely an exercise in futility. The facts of the case even prima facie, do not disclose any offence and, therefore, the trial, in all probabilities will end into acquittal of the applicant. ( 5 ) THIS Court and the Apex Court have often said that even considering the facts as they are, no offence is disclosed and the trial if permitted to proceed in all probabilities is likely to result into acquittal of the accused. It should be terminated at the threshold. As seen aforesaid that when the offence is alleged to have taken place, in the instant case the provisions of the Act and the Rule were slightly different and "printing" was not included within the scope of expression "advertisement ". It was at a subsequent stage, the amendment covering "printing" into fold of said expression was introduced, which as stated above cannot have retrospective effect. It was at a subsequent stage, the amendment covering "printing" into fold of said expression was introduced, which as stated above cannot have retrospective effect. In that view of the matter, the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate in favour of the applicant, though for different reasons, is required to be confirmed and the order of the learned Sessions Judge, passed in criminal Revision Application No. 51 of 2001 is required to be quashed and set aside and accordingly it is ordered to be quashed and set aside and the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate is restored. Since this application is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973, praying for quashing of the proceedings against the present applicant, the said prayer is also required to be granted. The proceedings of Criminal case No. 613 of 2000 pending on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amreli so far as they relate to the present applicant, are quashed. Thus, this application is allowed. Rule is made absolute. .