ORDER 1. The petitioners, who have been arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 6, are facing trial for the alleged offences under Sections 7(ii) & 16(1)(a)(i) read with 2(ix) (g) and (k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act , 1954 and Rule 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, in the case pending in STC No. 2053 of 2009 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirunelveli, and they have come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the complaint pending in S.T.C. No. 2053 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Tiruenlveli. 2. The case of the prosecution is to the effect that the 1st accused is the proprietor of a medical shop by name “Bye-Pass Medicals”, Tirunelveli. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 are the Directors of the 6th Accused Company, namely M/s.Quick Silver Health Care (P) Limited. The 6th accused Company, is the Re-packers of the food article, namely Glucose-D, manufactured by M/s.Maize Products, Kathwada, Ahmedabad. It is alleged that the Food Inspector, Tirunelveli Corporation, on his routine inspection, inspected the 1st accused’s Medical Shop, namely ‘Bye-Pass Medicals’, on 26.6.2008 at 1.30 p.m. and found that the 1st accused was selling Glucose-D Powder. It is stated in the complaint that the shop owner, namely the 1st accused, was possessing valid licence. Thereafter, the Food Inspector informed Accused No. 1 that he is taking sample of Glucose-D Packets for sending the same to Public Analyst, Food Analysis Laboratory, for analysis. Accordingly, the Food Inspector has taken 100 gm. sample each from 10 packets. On enquiry, accused No. 1 stated that he purchased the said Glucose-D from the 6th Accused Company, for which accused Nos. 2 to 5 are the Directors. It is the further case of the prosecution, as per the complaint, that on sending the samples for analysis, the Public Analyst sent a Report, after examination of samples, opining that the said sample is misbranded, as it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of Rule 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 3. It is the further case of the prosecution, as per the complaint, that on sending the samples for analysis, the Public Analyst sent a Report, after examination of samples, opining that the said sample is misbranded, as it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of Rule 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 3. After receipt of the Report of the Public Analyst, dated 30.7.2008, the Food Inspector, Tirunelveli Corporation, has filed a Complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirunelveli, alleging offences under Sections 16(1),(a)(i) read with Section 7(ii) , 2(ix)(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rue 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The said complaint was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirunelveli. Being aggrieved against the said complaint, on the ground that no offence as alleged in the complaint is made out, the petitioners have preferred the present petition seeking to quash the complaint. 4. Mr.R.Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioners, would put-forth the following contentions: (i) The allegations contained in the Complaint do not make out the alleged offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act , as claimed by the Food Inspector, in his complaint. (ii) The main allegation contained in the complaint is only reproduction of the opinion of the Public Analyst in his Report to the effect that the sample is misbranded, as it is not labelled as per the requirements of Rule 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and the complaint does not state as to how and in what manner the sample taken is misbranded and as such, the complaint is liable to be quashed. (iii) Even a perusal of the Public Analyst Report does not disclose any specific violation, except giving a vague information to the effect that the sample was found to be misbranded and it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of Rule 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. (iv) In the complaint, it is not stated that the label was not properly affixed or the Food Inspector suspected misbranding. (iv) In the complaint, it is not stated that the label was not properly affixed or the Food Inspector suspected misbranding. (v) Admittedly, Glucose-D packets contain the declaration, declaring that “99.4% Pure Glucose” and the ingredients contained, even as per the Public Analyst’s Report and as such, no offences, much less offences of violation of the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration and Rules as mentioned in the complaint are made out. (vi) Learned counsel for the petitioners would also place reliance on the decision of this Court K. Ganesan and Others v. The Food Inspector, Periyakulam Municipality (2009) 1 MWN (Cr) 183 , in order to substantiate his contentions. 5. Per contra, learned Government advocate Mr. P. Kannithevan, would contend that the petitioners have not made out any ground to quash the proceedings initiated for the offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules. It is contended that the complaint was preferred by the Food Inspector on the basis of the Public Analyst Report to the effect that the sample taken from the shop of the 1st accused was found to be misbranded and it was not labelled in accordance with the requirements of Rule 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. It is contended that the said allegation was specifically made in the complaint also. Learned Government advocate would further submit that the other accused, namely accused Nos. 2 to 6 are also liable as they are the directors and repackers of the adulterated food article. It is submitted that a counter has also been filed by the Food Inspector of Tirunelveli Corporation in this matter. 6. This Court carefully considered the rival contentions put-forth by the counsel on either side and perused the entire materials available on record. 7. At the outset, it is to be stated that a perusal of the complaint preferred by the Food Inspector, Tirunelveli Corporation, does not disclose any specific and definite allegations constituting any offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act or making out contravention of any Rules under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 7. At the outset, it is to be stated that a perusal of the complaint preferred by the Food Inspector, Tirunelveli Corporation, does not disclose any specific and definite allegations constituting any offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act or making out contravention of any Rules under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. It is pertinent to note that it is stated in the complaint by the Food Inspector that the samples of Glucose-D packets taken from the medical shop of the 1st accused, namely the first petitioner’s medical shop, for which the 1st petitioner is the proprietor, was found to be misbranded, as it was not labelled in accordance with the requirements of Rule 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. However, it is not alleged as to how and in what manner the same was found to be misbranded. It is not the case of the Food Inspector, even as per the complaint, that the packets were found without any label. Therefore, it is crystal clear that there is absolutely no allegation whatsoever in respect of absence of any label or any misleading information furnished in the label, in respect of the ingredients. In such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the allegation contained in the complaint is nothing but the reproduction of the vague and bald opinion given by the Public Analyst, as per his Report, dated 30.7.2008. 8. A perusal of the Public Analyst Report, dated 30.7.2008, reveals that it is specifically mentioned in the Column under the head “Label” that the sample contains the label and it is declared in the Column as “99.4% Pure Glucose-D”. It is noted that though the said declaration was mentioned in the label, the Public Analyst has omitted to mention about the ingredients which are also furnished in the label, mentioning the percentages of other ingredients. The perusal of the Public Analyst Report further discloses that there is absolutely no mention whatsoever that the label does not contain the ingredients and its percentage. The perusal of the Public Analyst Report further discloses that there is absolutely no mention whatsoever that the label does not contain the ingredients and its percentage. Such being the position, there is absolutely no question of any misbranding on the ground of not labelling the article, namely Glucose-D, in accordance with the requirements of Rule 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, when particularly Rule 32(a) and 32(b) of the Rules read as under: “32.Every prepackaged food to carry a label.-(a)General.-(1) Prepackaged food shall not be described or presented on any label or in any labelling manner that is false misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character in any respect. (2) Label in prepackaged foods shall be applied in such a manner that they will not become separated from the container. (3) Contents on the label shall be clear, prominent, indelible and readily legible by the consumer under normal condition of purchase and use. (4) Where the container is covered by a wrapper the wrapper shall carry the necessary information or the label on the container shall be readily legible through the outer wrapper or not obscured by it. (b) Labelling of prepackaged foods.—Every package of food shall carry the following information on the label. (1) The name of the food.—The name of the food shall include trade name or description of food contained in the package. (2) List of ingredients.—A list of ingredients shall be declared on the label and shall be in the following manner:— (i) the list of ingredients shall contain an appropriate title, such as the term “ingredients”; (ii) the names of ingredients used in the product shall be mentioned in descending order in respect of their composition, by weight or volume, as the case may be; .....” 9. A reading of the above provisions makes it crystal clear that the provision contemplates that the label should contain Trade Name or description of food contained in the package and as per that, the names of the ingredients used in the product in descending order of their composition by weight or volume as the case may be. A reading of the above provisions makes it crystal clear that the provision contemplates that the label should contain Trade Name or description of food contained in the package and as per that, the names of the ingredients used in the product in descending order of their composition by weight or volume as the case may be. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the perusal of the Public Analyst Report discloses that it is merely stated about the reproduction of provision of Rule 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and a vague mentioning is made to the effect that the names of the ingredients used in the product in descending order of their composition by weight or volume are not mentioned on the label. But, in the earlier portion of the Report, containing Column ‘Label’, it is clearly stated as “99.4% Pure Glucose-D”. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the exact packet cover, which discloses that the ingredients are also mentioned as per the percentage/weight, apart from mentioning 99.4% Pure Glucose-D. Of course, this Court cannot peruse the said cover and give a finding on the same. But, the fact remains that the Public Analyst Report does not contain any specific allegation about the misbranding on the ground that label does not furnish the required particulars. The Report itself is nothing but a vague and bald one and the opinion of the Public Analyst to the effect that the same was found to be misbranded is not based on materials or particulars furnished in the Report. 10. It is also relevant to refer the definition of “misbranded”, as per Section 2 of the Act, which reads as under: “Section 2 Definitions. — ...... (ix) ”misbranded”—an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded— (a) if it is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, or resembles in a manner likely to deceive, another article of food under the name of which it is sold, and is not plainly and conspicuously labelled so as to indicate its true character. .... (k) if it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of the Act or rules made thereunder; 11. .... (k) if it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of the Act or rules made thereunder; 11. A reading of the above said provision makes it clear that for raising the allegation of misbranding, it is incumbent on the part of the Food Inspector to mention specific and definite allegations to fulfil the requirements contemplated for constituting the allegations of “misbranding”. At the risk of repetition, it is to be stated that the complaint does not contain any specific or definite allegation as to how and in what manner the same was found to be misbranded or on what ground the same was found to be not labelled in accordance with the requirements of Rule 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. It is also worthwhile to refer a decision rendered by the High Court of Gauhati, Glaxo India Limited and Others v. State of Assam and Others (2003) 1 FAC 232 , wherein it is held by the High Court of Gauhati that the complaint preferred solely on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, without disclosing any offence, is liable to be quashed. 12. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, K. Ganesan and Others v. The Food Inspector, Periyakulam Municipality (supra), on an identical issue, this Court has held as follows: “10. ....At this juncture, it is relevant to state, as already pointed out by this Court, in the impugned Complaint there is absolutely no mention about as to how and in what manner the sample has to be called as “misbranded” and the respondent only reproduced the opinion of the Public Analyst alone. Therefore, neither in the Analyst report nor in the impugned Complaint and even in the counter filed by the respondent herein it is not stated or made out as to how and in what manner the sample is said to be the misbranded one. *** *** *** 18. As stated above, the impugned Complaint does not make out a prima facie case to the effect that the sample is a misbranded one and as such allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioners would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of Court and therefore, the irresistible conclusion of this Court is that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.T.C. No. 156 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam is hereby quashed.” 13. It is also relevant to state that even the perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the Food Inspector in this matter does not disclose any specific and definite allegation and the same contained reproduction of the statement made in the complaint. By placing reliance on the report of the Public Analyst and the averments in the complaint of the Food Inspector, even in the counter it is not specifically stated as to how and in what manner the labelling in the sample was found to be misbranded. 14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioners would amount to a clear abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 7(ii) & 16(1)(a)(i) read with 2(ix) (g) and (k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act , 1954 and Rule 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 pending in STC No. 2053 of 2009 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirunelveli, is hereby quashed. Connected M.P.(MD) Nos. 2 and 3 of 2010 are closed. Petition allowed.