JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 03rd November, 2004. 2. Learned counsel submits that a complaint has been lodged implicating many persons for adulteration of food (ice cream). The application for sending second sample for testing was made. Prior to it, the order of cognizance of offence under Section 7(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "the Act") was passed. On getting report of second sample, the court found no adulteration, thus earlier report stood superseded. The court decided to drop the case for the allegations of adulteration of food. A reference of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in Cr.L.R. (SC) 1992 170 was given. The court however, kept the case pending against the present petitioners on an allegation, for which neither complaint was filed nor cognizance of offence was taken. It was not a case for violation of Rule 50 of the Rules. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The perusal of the complaint does not disclose violation of any rule, which requires a license for sale of food products. The cognizance was taken for offence under Section 7(1) of the Act, though it should have been under Section 7/16 of the Act because punishments are provided under Section 16 and not under Section 7(1) of the Act. In any case, if Section 7(1) of the Act is considered, it is for the adulteration and not for the violation of Rules, vis-a-vis sale of product without license. The court below passed the impugned order to continue the proceedings without going through the complaint as well as the order of cognizance. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed to continue the proceedings against the present petitioners. 6. Before parting with the judgment, it would be necessary to observe that the judgment in the case of K.S. Mathew (supra) was overruled in the case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal & Ors. reported in JT 2004 (7) SC 243, thus the court below should remain careful and not to refer the judgment, which has already been overruled, that to, before passing of the impugned order. 7. reported in JT 2004 (7) SC 243, thus the court below should remain careful and not to refer the judgment, which has already been overruled, that to, before passing of the impugned order. 7. With the aforesaid, this criminal misc. petition stands disposed of.