Judgment All the three Criminal Miscellaneous applications are directed against the orders which are common in nature. They have been heard together and a common judgment is being passed. 2. The petitioner, in all the cases, is one Charan Khelani alias Charan Khelani, who is the Managing Director of Lumbini Beverage Pvt. Ltd., Hajipur, Vaishali. He seeks quashing of orders dated 18.8.2004 (all the three orders in three different cases have been passed on the same day). The aforesaid orders have been passed in Complaint Cases Nos. 50(O)/04, 48(O)/04 and 51(O)/04. The orders in all such cases are the orders taking cognizance for the offences under sections 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 3. Three prosecution reports were filed against the petitioner. This was on the basis of prosecution launched by the Food Inspector who, on the same day, procured three bottles of Mirinda, Pepsi cold drinks and cold drink by the name of Slice from the shop of one Sunil Kumar at Piro, in the district of Bhojpur. The aforesaid samples of cold drinks were sent for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample of Mirinda was adulterated because of the presence of foreign matter and was also misbranded because of violation of Rule 32 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The samples of pepsi and slice were also found to be adulterated because of such violation of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, leading to the inference that all the three samples were found to be misbranded. 4. Let it be noted that such samples were procured from the same shop, on the same day, and were sent for analysis. 5. A perusal of the documents annexed with the prosecution report does not make it clear as to whether the requirement of Section 13(2) of Act was fulfilled before obtaining the sample and sending it for chemical analysis. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act reads as under: “13(1)……. 5. A perusal of the documents annexed with the prosecution report does not make it clear as to whether the requirement of Section 13(2) of Act was fulfilled before obtaining the sample and sending it for chemical analysis. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act reads as under: “13(1)……. (2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under subsection (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Sec. 14-A forward, in Such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.” 6. In the present case, the samples of cold drinks were procured from the shop of Sunil Kumar. It was incumbent upon the Local (Health) Authority to have issued notice to such person whose name had to be disclosed by the person from whom the sample was collected, as to from which source was it purchased. Such disclosure about the name of the source from where such food article/cold drinks was procured, was to be made under section 14-A of the Act. 7. Section 14-A of the Act makes it mandatory for every vender of an article of food to disclose to the Food Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he has purchased the article of food. 8. Admittedly, the samples were procured, as stated above, from the shop of Sunil Kumar. No such disclosure as to the source of purchase appears to have been made or taken under section 14-A of the Act. It is not known whether the shop, from where such sample was procured, was owned by the company manufacturing it or was authorized by the company to sell or deal with such cold drinks. No such disclosure as to the source of purchase appears to have been made or taken under section 14-A of the Act. It is not known whether the shop, from where such sample was procured, was owned by the company manufacturing it or was authorized by the company to sell or deal with such cold drinks. The possibility of aforesaid Sunil Kumar selling, for his own advantage, adulterated drink, without the knowledge of the petitioner, cannot be ruled out. Section 14 of the Act makes it very clear that the manufacturers, distributors and dealers have to sell the article to any vender only after giving him a warranty in writing in the prescribed form about the nature and quality of such article. It further makes it clear that any bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer or distributor or dealer would be deemed to be a warranty given by them. 9. Petitioner is the Managing Director of Lumbini Beverage Pvt. Ltd., Hajipur, Vaishali, which has been authorized, under the supervision of parent company of such cold drink, to manufacture and sell such brands of cold drinks. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the company of which the petitioner is Managing Director, has, in accordance with Section 17(2) of the Act read with Rule 12B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, nominated one Gitmaya Patnaik as the Quality Assurance Manager, who was to be in-charge of and responsible to the said company of the business. 10. In this view of the matter, the petitioner, it has been urged, could not have been prosecuted for any breach/violation of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. 11. Apart from this, it has further been submitted that the samples of Pepsi and Slice were found to be misbranded as the date of manufacture was not given or it was not legible and with respect to Mirinda cold drink, apart from the same being misbranded on the same account, also contained foreign material, making it unsuitable for consumption. Such report of the Analyst could not have been acted upon, as against the petitioner, as it is not known whether the samples collected were obtained from the company concerned. Such report of the Analyst could not have been acted upon, as against the petitioner, as it is not known whether the samples collected were obtained from the company concerned. Had the disclosure as required under section 14-A of the Act been taken from the shopkeeper, there would have been a further requirement of intimation to the petitioner of his rights of getting such samples analyzed at any different centre. The notice as mandated under section 13(2) of the Act also does not appear to have been given. 12. For sale and purchase of adulterated article, the Act and Rules, referred to above, make a comprehensive scheme for prosecution. In the absence of any positive information about the source from where such adulterated food article/drink was obtained, no prosecution could be maintained against the petitioner. 13. Considering the aforementioned grounds and taking into account the fact that such samples were procured from the same place and on the same day as well as non-fulfillment of the mandatory requirement under the Act, the orders taking cognizance cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 14. Accordingly, the orders dated 18.8.2004, 18.8.2004, 18.8.2004 passed in Complaint Case Nos. 50(o)/04, 48(O)/04 and 51(O)/04 pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur are set aside. 15. All the three applications stand allowed. Application allowed.