Judgment : Per R. REGUPATHI, J. 1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 213 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore for an alleged offence punishable under Sections 7(1)(iv), 16(1) (a) (i), 16(1-A) (i) read with Section 2(ia)(h) and Rule 42(zzz) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He seeks to quash the pending proceedings in C.C. No.213 of 2002. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a case has been filed on the strength of the notification No.VI(2)/311 (a) 2001, which was issued by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Tamil Nadu. The impugned notification No.780 was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 19.11.2001. The said notification has been questioned and it was struck down by the Honourable Supreme Court as being unconstitutional and beyond the legislative competence of the State. 2. In a case Godawat Pan Masala Products I. P. Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others (2004) 7 SCC 68 in para 77, it has been held as follows: “1. Section 7(iv) of the Act is not an independent source of power for the State authority. 2. The source of power of the State Food (Health) Authority is located only in the valid rules made in exercise of the power under Section 24 of the Act by the State Government, to the extent permitted thereunder. 3. The power of the Food (Health) Authority under the Rules is only of transitory nature and intended to deal with local emergencies and can last only for a short period while such emergency lasts. 4. The power of banning an article of food or an article used as ingredient of food, on the ground that it is injurious to health, belongs appropriately to the Central Government to be exercised in accordance with the Rules made under Section 23 of the Act, particularly, sub-section (1-A)(f). 5. The State Food (Health) authority has no power to prohibit the manufacture for sale, storage, sale or distribution of any article, whether used as an article or adjunct thereto or not used as food. Such a power can only arise as a result of wider policy decision and emanate from parliamentary legislation or, at least by exercise of the powers by the Central Government by framing rules under Section 23 of the Act. 6. Such a power can only arise as a result of wider policy decision and emanate from parliamentary legislation or, at least by exercise of the powers by the Central Government by framing rules under Section 23 of the Act. 6. The provisions of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 are directly in conflict with the provisions of Section 7(iv) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The former Act is a special Act intended to deal with tobacco and tobacco products particularly, while the latter enactment is a general enactment. Thus, Act 34 of 2003 being a special Act, and of later origin, overrides the provisions of Section 7(iv) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 with regard to the power to prohibit the sale or manufacture of tobacco products which are listed in the Schedule to Act 34 of 2003. 7. The impugned notifications are ultra vires the Act and, hence, bad in law. 8. The impugned notifications are unconstitutional and void as abridging the fundamental rights of the appellants guaranteed under Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution.” 3. The notification based on which prosecution initiated was quashed. If the proceedings are allowed to continue no useful purpose will be served. 4. Under such circumstances, the proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 213 of 2002 is quashed. Accordingly this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.