JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of instant petition, filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C, the petitioner seeks quashment of Complaint (Annexure-A) dated 20th May, 2003 titled, “Jammu Municipal Corporation Vs. Ashok Kumar and Another” filed by the Jammu Municipal Corporation, i.e., respondent No. 1 herein in the Court of Special Municipal (Mobile) Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu against him on the grounds that the petitioner manufactures its Pillsbury Atta in the Northern Region of India through one of its co-packers M/S Mix Flora Pvt. Ltd. Most of the supply of the petitioner’s Pillsbury Atta in the Northern Region of India is made from the above said Co-packer situated at 154 & 155 D.S.I.D.C. Industrial Area, Narela, Delhi. The manufacturing and processing of the petitioner’s Pillsbury Atta at the said co-packing unit is done automatically and the packaging of the petitioner’s Pillsbury Atta at the said co-packing unit is done manually. The petitioner has worldwide accepted Good Manufacturing Practices (in short, GMP) and Hazard Critical Control Point (in short, HACCP) procedures in place for quality manufacturing. 2. It is stated in the instant petition that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the proceedings in a Complaint u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. It has further been stated that reading of the whole Complaint and in particular, the enclosures as mentioned at Page No. 3 of the Complaint does not carry an iota of prima-facie evidence much less the substantial evidence that the alleged sample was taken from the bag of Pillsbury Atta, of which the petitioner is the manufacturer. This important aspect of the matter came into the knowledge of the petitioner through one of its authorized representative, who for the first time put in appearance before the Trial Court on the date, i.e., 26th September, 2003, on which the alleged sample was required to be sent for re-examination by the Central Food Laboratory pursuant to an application made u/s 13(2) of the aforesaid Act by the petitioner. On the next date, i.e., on 27th September, 2003 when the alleged sample was brought before the Hon’ble Court by the complainant himself that the said alleged sample did not carry any bearing on it that the said alleged sample is of the petitioner’s Pillsbury Atta. 4. On the next date, i.e., on 27th September, 2003 when the alleged sample was brought before the Hon’ble Court by the complainant himself that the said alleged sample did not carry any bearing on it that the said alleged sample is of the petitioner’s Pillsbury Atta. 4. I have heard counsel for parties and gone through the law on the subject. 5. Main thrust of argument of counsel for petitioner is that mandatory compliance of amended rule 22 of Act has not been made as the articles (Atta) was in packed conditions, so whole packet was to be taken for examination without opening seal or packet. 6. Whereas counsel for State has stated that this aspect of procedural law is directory in nature and not necessary. Mr. S.S. Nanda, learned Sr. AAG, appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case titled, “State of Punjab Vs. Devinder Kumar and others” 1983 (1) page 99 Prevention of Food Adulteration cases, wherein it is held that rule 22-A does not state that where a sealed container contains a quantity larger than what is required for the purposes of section 11 read with rule 22, the sealed container as such should be taken as sample and no sample can be taken after opening the sealed container. 7. From the perusal of the Complaint in question, it is evident that the complainant, namely, Jyoti Sarup was appointed as Food Inspector, Jammu Municipal Corporation under the provisions of the aforesaid Act for the local area of Jammu Municipal Corporation vide Jammu & Kashmir Govt. Notification SRO-346 date 27th July, 1984. After disclosing his identity, he inspected the premises of Ashok Kumar Jain, (respondent No. 2 herein) on 25th February, 2003, situated at Karan Nagar, Jammu. The said respondent No. 2 used to sell Karyana items like Spices, Pulses and Atta etc. The said Food Inspector found 8 bags of Atta of different brands and demanded a sample of Atta Pillsburry brand from Ashok Kumar Jain. For this purpose, he gave in writing in Form No. VI prepared on spot, as prescribed under the aforesaid Act. The complainant purchased 600 grams Atta of Pillsbury brand from the said Ashok Kumar Jain for Rs. 7/- and obtained a receipt of payment. 8. For this purpose, he gave in writing in Form No. VI prepared on spot, as prescribed under the aforesaid Act. The complainant purchased 600 grams Atta of Pillsbury brand from the said Ashok Kumar Jain for Rs. 7/- and obtained a receipt of payment. 8. It has been further alleged in the aforesaid Complaint that the said Sample was divided into three equal parts and bottled in three dry and clean bottles. The bottles were stoppered labeled & wrapped in strong thick paper ends of which were neatly folded in and affixed by means of gum. The sample was taken in the presence of two witnesses, whose signatures were obtained on the payment receipt. At the time of lifting of sample, the independent witnesses were asked to stand as witnesses, but nobody came forward and the departmental witness had to be kept. The sealed part of the sample of Atta along with Memorandum in Form No. VII in a sealed outer cover was handed over to the Public Analyst, Jammu and under intimation to the Local Health Authority, Jammu Municipal Corporation, the remaining two sealed parts of sample along with two copies of Memorandum inform No. VII were handed over to the Local Health Authority, Jammu Municipal Corporation in a sealed outer cover and a receipt was obtained. The Certificate of Public Analyst, Jammu reveals that the sample does not conform to the standard prescribed for Atta as per PFA Rules, 1955. Accordingly, the Complaint was filed before the Special Municipal (Mobile) Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu. The petitioner being the owner of the General Mills was also arrayed as accused. During the pendency of the Complaint, the second sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory and the Central Food Laboratory on 29th September, 2013 issued Certificate of Analysis, which reads as follows:- “CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS BY THE CENTRAL FOOD LABORATORY Certificate No. CFL/739/1171/2003 Certified that the sample bearing No. 01 S. No. 212/2002-03 purporting to be a sample of Atta Pillsbury was received on 01.09.2003 with Memorandum No. MMJ/114 dated 27th August, 2003 from the Special Municipal Mobile Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jammu for analysis. The condition of the seals on the container and the outer covering on receipt was as follows:- The sample was received in sealed condition. The seals were intact, properly fastened and tallied with the specimen impression of the seal received separately from the Hon’ble Court. The condition of the seals on the container and the outer covering on receipt was as follows:- The sample was received in sealed condition. The seals were intact, properly fastened and tallied with the specimen impression of the seal received separately from the Hon’ble Court. I Sh. S.B. Shirolkar found the sample to the Atta falling under Item No. A. 18.01 of *Appendix B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955*. The sample was in condition fit for analysis and has been analyzed from 23rd September, 2003 to 29th September, 2003 and the results of its analysis is given below:- ANALYSIS REPORT:- (i) Sample description: Sample received loose in polythene bag. (ii) Physical appearance: Off white powder. (iii) Label - S. No. Quality Characteristics Name of Method of test used Results Prescribed standards as per: (a) Item A of Appendix B. (b) As per label declaration for proprietary foods. (c) As per provisions of the Act and Rules, for both above as per item. Moisture by heating at 130-133 O C for 2 hrs DGHS Manual 10.46% Not more than 14.0% 2. Total ash DGHS Manual 1.60% Not more than 2.0% on dry wt. basis. 3. Ash insoluble in dil HCI -do- 0.07% Not more than 0.15% on dry wt. basis. 4. Gluten -do- 8.3% Not less than 6.0% on dry wt. basis. 5. Alcoholic acidity (with 90% alcohol) expressed as H 2 SO 4 -do- 0.19% Not more than 0.18% on dry wt. basis. 6. Microscopic examination D. Pearson Wheat + Rice Starch Wheat starch shall be present. Opinion-I am of the opinion that the Sample No. 01 S. No. 212/2002-03 does not conform to the standards of Atta as per PEA Rules, 1955. Place:-Pune-411001 Dated:-29.09.2003 Director, Central Food Laboratory.” 9. From the perusal of the aforesaid Analysis Report, it is evident that at Serial No.5, the result with regard to alcoholic acidity is 0.19%, whereas it should not be more than 0.18%. Rest report is OK. 10. Law is clear that report of Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of Public Analyst. 11. It is admitted fact that food article-Atta which was seized, was packed in package. 12. As already noted, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (7th Amendment) Rules, 2002 and has argued that the respondents have not complied with the provisions assigned in the aforesaid Rules. 11. It is admitted fact that food article-Atta which was seized, was packed in package. 12. As already noted, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (7th Amendment) Rules, 2002 and has argued that the respondents have not complied with the provisions assigned in the aforesaid Rules. The said Rule reads as follows:- 13. Rule 22–Quantity of sample to be sent to the public Analyst. 1. “(i) These rules may be called the Prevention of Food Adulteration (7th Amendment) Rules, 2002. (i) They shall come into force after six months from the date of their publication in the official gazette. 2. In the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules), for Rule 22, the following rules shall be substituted, namely:- 22. Quality of sample to be sent to the public analyst:- The quality of sample of food to be sent to the Public Analyst/Director for analysis shall be as specified in the table below:- Note:-Foods sold in packaged condition (sealed container/package) shall be sent for analysis in its original condition without opening the package and along with original label to constitute the approximate quality. 14. From the perusal of the aforesaid Rules, it is evident that whenever food is sold in packaged condition and its quality is required to be analyzed in order to see its fitness for human consumption, then same has to be sent to Public Analyst/Director for analysis in its original condition (package) along with original label without opening the package. The main purpose of this amendment would be that, in case samples are taken after opening the package, due to humidity and other circumstances, it can be infected and adulteration may occur by way of natural cause. In present case, sample has been taken on 25.2.2003 and it was tested by Public Analyst from 07.03.2003 to 22.3.2003 as is evident from report. Similarly central food laboratory tested the sample from 23.9.2003 to 29.9.2003. This delay examination may be cause of increase of Alcoholic acidity. 15. The proposed amendment has come into force after six months from the date of its publication in the official gazette. The publication has been made on 29.7.2002. So it would have come into force in January 2003. 16. This delay examination may be cause of increase of Alcoholic acidity. 15. The proposed amendment has come into force after six months from the date of its publication in the official gazette. The publication has been made on 29.7.2002. So it would have come into force in January 2003. 16. The case is pertaining to 25.2.2003, so when sample was taken by complainant said amendment had already come into force. So Food Inspector was duty bound to comply with the rules. Statutory laws are made by Parliament or State Legislature and rules are made by Govt. and same are published in Govt. Gazette. The Rules are subordinate legislation; Act confers on the Govt. to frame rules; the purpose of rules is to carry out the objects of Act. Rules thus have to be followed in its letter and spirit. Whenever any statue carries severe punishment, then rules are safeguards, which protect innocent persons from being involved in false and frivolous litigation. 17. In view of above discussion, this petition is allowed as mandatory provision of rule 22 of Act was not followed. The complaint is quashed. The record of Court below be sent back forthwith.