Judgment 1. This Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the order 19.7.2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in case no. 4C-2/ 2004 thereby and thereunder cognizance under Section 16(1)(a) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been taken against the petitioner as well as revisional courts order dated 21.11.2006 passed by Sri Vijay Kumar Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-Ill, Begusarai in Criminal Revision No. 16/2006 affirming the order of cognizance. 2. Submission of leanned counsel for the petitioner is that he is neither the owner of G.R. store nor Vishwanath Mobil House who is the whole seller of Parle-G Biscuit. In support of it, the petitioner has filed annexure-11 which is a letter of Regional Sales manager of Parle Products Limited. It is further submitted that according to the report of the Drug Laboratory, Agamkuan, the only violation alleged to be committed was non-mentioning of logo of vegeterian food required under 42(zzz) (17) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 but logo is to given by manufacturer of the articles and not by the seller. Therefore, it was the manufacturer who was liable for prosecution and not this petitioner or the owner of the shops in question. 3. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused annexure-10 which is the report of the Drug Laboratory as well as the letter dated 20.8.2006 written by the Regional Sales Manager, Parle Products Limited (Annexure-11). It is quite clear for the letter that this petitioner is not the owner of the firm Vishwanath Mobil House. It further appears from annexure-10 that sample of biscuits was found misbranded only because logo of vegeterian food had not been mentioned on the label of biscuit. Admitted fact is that logo has to be given by the manufacturer and not by the seller. Therefore no criminal liability can be fastened to the seller of Parte-G products. Apart from it, the petitioner had no concern with either of the aforesaid shops. No sample was taken from the petitioner. 4. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it is quite clear that prosecution of this petitioner on any ground is not sustainable. It is the misuse of the process of the court. 5. The application is allowed and the impugned order of cognizance is hereby quashed.