JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State. 2. By means of this application under Section 482 CrPC, the applicants have assailed the order dated 05.02.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.25, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.4998/2004, whereby the discharge application of the applicants has been rejected and the judgment and order passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No.89/2014, whereby the revision filed against the dismissal of the discharge application has also been dismissed. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the Food Inspector took sample of packed Mircha Powder from the shop of the applicants, but after analysis no adulteration was found. The only charge against the applicants is that as required by Rule 42 (ZZZ), the green mark was not available on the packed food which is necessary under the provisions of Rule 42 (ZZZ) of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the Central Government while introducing the aforesaid rules has also framed a policy in which it has been provided that the parties affected may be given a written warning by way of a notice drawing their attention to Rule 32 which provided for particulars to be exhibited on the sampled tin or the packet, in case the practice is repeated after a written warning, the party committing the offence second time would be prosecuted. 5. The submission of the learned counsel is that the applicants were not given the benefit of the policy of the Central Government. Both the courts below have misread the provisions and have wrongly concluded that the policy has been framed in respect of Rule 32 while the applicants are being prosecuted under Rule 42 (ZZZ). 6. On perusal of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Rule 32 provides every prepackeged food to carry a label. Rule 42 of the said Rules provides forms of labels to be affixed. Rule 42(ZZZ)17 provides that every package of Vegetarian Food shall bear the following symbol in green colour on the principal display just close in proximity to name or brand name of the food. Rule 42 of the said Rules provides forms of labels to be affixed. Rule 42(ZZZ)17 provides that every package of Vegetarian Food shall bear the following symbol in green colour on the principal display just close in proximity to name or brand name of the food. Thus, Rule 32 and 42 are to be read together and not independent to each other because Rule 32 requires every prepackeged food to carry a label and Rule 42 provides form of labels. 7. Learned AGA has on the other hand opposed the prayer and has submitted that the law cited by the learned counsel for the applicants and the policy relied upon by the applicants does not apply to this case, therefore, the court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the policy framed by the Central Government is not attracted to the case of the applicants. 8. I do not agree with the submission of the learned AGA that Rule 32 and Rule 42 both are to be read separately. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the matter is remitted back to the learned trial court with a direction that in the light of policy framed by the Central Government, the discharge application of the applicants be decided afresh in the light of observations made hereinabove. 10. In the result, the application is allowed and the order dated 05.02.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.25, Lucknow as well as judgment and order of the revisional Court dated 04.11.2015 are set aside.