JUDGMENT 1. Since the lis involved and the parties are similar and the petition relates to assailing the order of cognizance taken under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hence in view of the similarity of the three tagged petitions S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2223/2013, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2225/2013 and S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2226/2013 are connected and are being decided by a sample order. 2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has illegally launched criminal complaints in three sample cases allegedly found adulterated under the provision of repealed Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (Act 37 of 1954) though the said Act of 37 of 1954 was repealed and The Food Safety and Standard Act 2006 (Act 34/2006) was enforced. 3. It has further been contended that alleged sample was taken on 06.08.2010 and the complaint was lodged on 11.02.2011 and the court below took cognizance in all the three cases on even date on 11.02.2011 and it is manifest that the trial court has faulted and has erroneously resorted to take cognizance under the Provisions of repealed Act of 37/54, which has subsequently replaced by The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 Act of 34/2006, which came into being on 23.08.2006, as such there was no occasion to proceed against the petitioners under the repealed act of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act 37 of 1954) this error goes to root of the matter and the order impugned is liable to be quashed. 4. It has further contended that even in the old cases pertaining to sub-judice matters under the provisions of repealed Act of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Government has issued a circular on 02.08.2016 directing the commissioner of Food Safety to withdraw such old petty matters, in view of the enactment of The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (Act 34/2006), which too stands enforced, so the petition be allowed and the order impugned be quashed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to controvert the factual aspect pertaining to procurement of the sample, lodging of the complaint and date of cognizance and with respect to the dates of enforcement of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006(Act-34/2006). 6. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to controvert the factual aspect pertaining to procurement of the sample, lodging of the complaint and date of cognizance and with respect to the dates of enforcement of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006(Act-34/2006). 6. Heard and perused the material, it is candid that Act 34/2006, the Food Safety and Standards, Act, 2006 (Act 34 of 2006) has been promulgated and came into existence on 23.08.2006 and the sample impugned has been procured on 06.08.2010, subsequently the complaints have been filed on 11.02.2011 and the cognizance has also been resorted to on even date on 11.02.2011, as such, the Court below has entertained and resorted to take cognizance for the alleged offence under the repealed Act, which is not permissible under the law. 7. Resultantly, the petition preferred by the petitioner is allowed and the order of cognizance and proceedings, subsequent thereto, in respect of criminal case No. 74/2011 (in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2223/2013), criminal case No. 75/2011 (in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2225/2013), criminal case No. 76/2011 (in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2226/2013) are set aside and quashed. 8. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to concerned court for necessary information and compliance.