Judgment By Court: This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.9.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in case No. C-Iv/13/2009 whereby he took cognizance under section 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the petitioner and issued summon for his appearance. 2. It appears that on 3.6.2009 sample of three items, namely, Cadbury Bournvita, Cadbury Dairy Milk Chocolate and Cadbury 5 Star Chocolate seized by the Food Inspector, from the shop of M/s Surekha Distributers, Mangal Bhawan, Ashok Puram, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi. The samples of all the aforesaid items sent for examination by the State Public Analyst under the provision of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. It appears that State Public Analyst on examination of 5 Star Chocolate concluded that the same is filled chocolate and it does not conform to the prescribed standard of quality laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, due to presence of hydrogenated vegetable fats, hence adulterated. 4. After submission of aforesaid report of analyst, learned SDJM took cognizance of the offence under section 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide order dated 22.9.2009 and issued summons. Aforesaid order challenged in this application. 5. It is submitted by Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner that as per Appendix -B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rule 1955 the standard quality of filled chocolate has been prescribed, which does not prevent use of Hydrogenated vegetable fats in preparation of filled chocolate. It is submitted that the report of analyst is against the rule, therefore on the basis of same, petitioner cannot be prosecuted. It is further submitted that the Public Analyst in his report had not stated that the sample in question is injurious to the health of human being. Thus, as per the explanation attached to section 2(ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Chocolate is not an adulterated food, therefore on that ground also prosecution of petitioner is illegal. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 6. On the other hand, Sri Deepak Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that as per the norms prescribed in the rule for manufacturing of filled chocolate, it is necessary for the manufacturer to coat 25% chocolate over the filled item. Thus, the said chocolate content require to fulfill the norms prescribed for chocolate. 6. On the other hand, Sri Deepak Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that as per the norms prescribed in the rule for manufacturing of filled chocolate, it is necessary for the manufacturer to coat 25% chocolate over the filled item. Thus, the said chocolate content require to fulfill the norms prescribed for chocolate. It is submitted that the norms prescribed for the chocolate clearly shows that no hydrogenated vegetable fact can be used for its manufacturing. Since hydrogenated vegetable fats present in the sample therefore analyst concluded that it is an adulterated food. Accordingly, he submitted that the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted under the Food Adulteration Act. 7. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the same and the relevant rules. Appendix-B clause [A.25.03 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 prescribed the content of chocolate. From perusal of the said clause of Appendix-B, it appears that for preparation of filled chocolate, separate content prescribed, which runs as follows:- “Filled Chocolate means a product having an external coating of chocolate with a center clearly distinct through its composition from the external coating, but does not include flour confectionery, pastry and biscuit products. The coating shall be of chocolate that meets the requirements of one or more of the chocolate types mentioned above. The amount of chocolate component of the coating shall not be less than 25 percent of the total mass of the finished product.” 8. From perusal of the standard fixed for preparation of filled chocolate, it manifests that use of hydrogenated vegetable fats in the center of filled chocolate is not prohibited. 9. From perusal of report of Public Analyst, it is clear that the sample in question is a filled chocolate. Analyst only stated that hydrogenated vegetable fats found in the sample. He did not say that the said hydrogenated fat found in the center of chocolate or its coated portion. 10. Since the standard prescribed for preparation of filled chocolate does not prohibit use of hydrogenated vegetable fat, thus, presence of the same in the filled chocolate, cannot be treated as an adulterated food under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 11. 10. Since the standard prescribed for preparation of filled chocolate does not prohibit use of hydrogenated vegetable fat, thus, presence of the same in the filled chocolate, cannot be treated as an adulterated food under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 11. Moreover, from perusal of explanation attached to section 2(ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it appears that if two or more articles of primary food are mixed together and resultant article of food is not injurious to health, then such resultant article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Public Analyst has not reported that sample of 5 Star chocolate is injurious to health of human being. Thus, on that ground also sample in question can not be declared as an adulterated food article, selling of which prohibited under section 16(1) a(i)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 12. In view of the discussion made above, I find that no offence under section 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is made out. Thus, the impugned order, whereby the learned court below took cognizance of aforesaid offence against the petitioner, is an abuse of the process of court, hence the same cannot be sustained. 13. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order 22.9.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Case No. C-Iv/13/2009 is hereby set aside so far it relates to petitioner. Application allowed.