JUDGMENT : Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. 477/11, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, for offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from the report of the analyst it was evident that the sample in question could not be held to be misbranded. 3. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. 4. On 29.3.2011, at about 3.15 p.m., Food Inspector visited the shop M/s. Charchit Traders at Bakani, District Jhalawar. Proprietor of the shop was present at the time of visit of the Food Inspector. Food Inspector purchased three packets of 245 grams each of Brooke Bond Taj Mahal (Tea) in sealed condition. Sample was sent for analysis and the Public Analyst reported as under :- "The sample of "Tea" (Brooke bond TAJ MAHAL Brand) bearing Code No. and Serial No. V-2084 CONFORMS to Prescribed Quality standards but does not follow directions of labelling of the food package as per Rules prescribed in PFA Act. Hence it is Declared Misbranded under section 2(ix)(k) of PFA Act 1954 & Rules 1955." 5. Thereafter, complaint in question was filed in the Court. 6. Rules 32(b)(1) and 42(zzz)(17) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') read as under:- "32. Every prepackaged food to carry a label.- (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." "42(ZZZ)(17) Every package of Vegetarian Food shall bear the following symbol in green colour on the principal display panel just close in proximity to the name or brand name of food." 7. As per the report of the analyst, the sample was labelled as under:- "Brooke bond TAJ MAHAL Brand, Batch no. H 30B11, DOP 12/10, Best before 12 months from DOP, Nutritional Value Given. Name of product not given, Green symbol for vegetarian not adjacent to trade name or name of commodity. It is violation of Rule 32(b)(1), 42(ZZZ) 17 of PFA Act. Hence it is case of Misbranding." 8. H 30B11, DOP 12/10, Best before 12 months from DOP, Nutritional Value Given. Name of product not given, Green symbol for vegetarian not adjacent to trade name or name of commodity. It is violation of Rule 32(b)(1), 42(ZZZ) 17 of PFA Act. Hence it is case of Misbranding." 8. A perusal of the above report of the analyst reveals that green symbol for Vegetarian was not adjacent to the trade name or name of the commodity. Admittedly, the green mark was there on the sample but it was not adjacent to the trade name or name of the commodity. As per Rule 42(ZZZ)(17), on every package of Vegetarian food symbol of green colour should be displayed just close in the proximity to the name or brand name of the food. 9. In the present case, the sample of Tea was taken for analysis. Tea leaves would normally denote that the product sold is Vegetarian. However, green symbol has also been affixed on the sample but it appears that the same was not adjacent to the trade name or name of the commodity. Keeping in view the nature of the product taken for analysis and the fact that the green symbol had been affixed on the label, it is evident that substantial compliance of Rule 42(ZZZ) (17) of the Rules had been made. Hence, the petitioners could not be criminally proceeded with regard to any alleged violation of Rule 42(ZZZ)(17) of the Rules. 10. As per the report of the analyst on the label name of the product had not been given. As per Rule 32(b)(1) of the Rules, the name of the food shall include trade name or description of food contained in the package. In the present case, the trade name i.e. Brooke Bond Taj Mahal was duly displayed on the label. Hence, it could not be said that any violation of Rule 32(b)(1) of the Rules had been committed by the petitioners. 11. Since, in the present case the petitioners had not committed any violation of Rule 32(b)(1) or Rule 42(ZZZ)(17) of the Rules, the sample could not be described as Misbranded. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Criminal proceedings, arising out of Criminal Case No. 477/11, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, are quashed.