JUDGMENT 1. - In this petition filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners, have prayed for quashing complaint and criminal proceedings initiated against them by the Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Pokaran upon filing Complaint by the Food Inspector, Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaisalmer. 2. Main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a search was made at firm of petitioner No. 1 at about 8.15 P.M. on 02.04.2009 by the Food Inspector and, in the inspection, he found 25 plastic packed jars containing sweet eatables, sugar boiled confectionary (Brand Nutrine Mahalacto), containing 484 gm in each jar kept on a wooden rack. Upon suspicion that it is adulterated, the Food Inspector purchased 3 plastic packed jars on payment of Rs. 150 and obtained receipt for the same in front of two witnesses. After completion of entire formalities, the samples were sent to the Public Analyst, Udaipur for testing through local health authority, Jaisalmer. According to the prosecution, samples were found to be misbranded, therefore, sanction for prosecution was obtained. Thereafter, complaint was filed against the petitioners for offence under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. Learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Pokaran After taking cognisance initiated prosecution against the petitioners while registering criminal case No. 10/2010, for which, prayer has been made by the petitioners that the said complaint may be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that complaint has been filled merely on the assertion that the samples are misbranded but, in fact, as per report it has been alleged that provision of Rule 64 BB and proviso to Rule 32 (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules have been violated whereas these provisions were enacted by publishing official gazette with effect from 19.03.2009 and food product which is in question was manufactured in April 2008, which is much prior to the amended provisions in the Rules of 1955, therefore, filling of complaint is totally erroneous because the rules were amended on 19.03.2009 and food product in question was manufactured in the month of April 2008, therefore, there was liberty left with the petitioners to sell the said food product till its expiry date. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on hyper-technical ground the complaint has been filed, in which, while taking cognisance against the petitioners learned Court below has committed wrong. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on hyper-technical ground the complaint has been filed, in which, while taking cognisance against the petitioners learned Court below has committed wrong. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that admittedly, according to the petitioners, amendment was made and published in official gazette on 19.03.2009 in the provisions of Rule 64 BB and proviso to Rule 34 (b) of the Rules, therefore, the day on which search was made which is 02.04.2009, there was no liberty left with the petitioners to sell the commodity which is found to be misbranded by the Public Analyst. 6. Further, contention of learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted that even if amendment is made the petitioners were having liberty to sell the food product till expiry of the date. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that there is no substance in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, no. case is made out for interference under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. 7. Hence, this petition filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******