ORDER : 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to quash the proceedings in S.M.M.F.No.15 of 2011, on the file of the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- On 23.06.2010, the respondent / complainant went to No.92, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai and after following all the procedures, took samples of Mala Butter Scotch Crush 700 Ml., Bottles from the 1st petitioner, which has been manufactured by the 2nd petitioner and sent it for analysis. According to the Analysis Report, the sample is found to be misbranded, since it is not labelled in accordance with requirement of Rule 32(b)(2)(ii) and 32(b)(2)(v) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. (in short, 'the Rules'). Hence, the complaint. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that A1 is the vendor, A2 is the Licensee and owner of the shop and A3 is the manufacturer of the product. according to the respondent, the violation is on labelling of the product and the complainant also includes the manufacture as one of the accused and as such, prosecuting the Vendor, the first petitioner herein, is unwarranted and abuse of process of Law. Section 32(b) of the said Rules deal with Labelling of prepackaged goods in which sub Clause (2)(ii) speaks about list of ingredients in which it has been said that “the name of the ingredients and their weight or volume used in the product at the time of its manufacture shall be listed in descending order This means the ingredients shall be declared by their weight or volume. A reading of Corrigendum, dated 27.02.2009 it is clear that declaration by weight or volume of the ingredients need not be mentioned in the label. 4. The learned counsel, inviting the attention of this Court to Notification issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, in Corrigendum, dated 27.02.2009, amended the Notification G.S.R.664(E), dated 19.09.2008, at page No.2 in Sub Rule (1) of Rule (3) in Clause (1) as “the name of ingredients used in the product shall be listed in descending order of their composition by weight or volume as the case may be, at the time of its manufacturer”. From this Corrigendum it is clear that declaration by weight or volume of the ingredients need not be mentioned in the label. From this Corrigendum it is clear that declaration by weight or volume of the ingredients need not be mentioned in the label. The sanctioning Authority, without going through the above enactments, accorded sanction, which is bad in law. The learned counsel, in support of his contention, has relied on the decision of this Court in A.Eswaramoorthy & others Vs. The Food Inspector, Tirunelveli reported in (2002 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 1212). 5. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondent, would submit that the sample was found to be misbranded and as such, the complaint cannot be quashed. Further, the provisions of Food Adulteration Act, has been strictly complied with by the respondent and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. The inspection was carried out on 23.06.2010; on the same day sample has been sent to Analyst; Analyst's Report, dated 27.07.2010, was received by the respondent on 03.08.2010 and sanction obtained on 26.11.2010. Thereafter, Section 13(2) Notice, dated 29.042011, had been issued. From the Analyst's Report it is seen that in the Food Product, the date of manufacture is mentioned as 19.03.2010 and the shelf-life is mentioned as 'Best before 12 months from packaging’. Further, Public Analyst's opinion is that the sample is found to be misbranded, as the sample does not satisfy Rule 32(b)(2)((ii) and 32(b)(2)(v) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The respondent as well the Sanctioning Authority failed to look into the fact that for Notification, dated 19th, September, 2008, as regards Rule, a Corrigendum dated 27th February, 2009 had been issued wherein, the product ingredients has been substituted to composition. Thus, declaration by weight and volume of ingredients need not be mentioned. The Public Analyst has not mentioned as to how and what manner the sample was misbranded and there is no specific averments that the consumers being mislead on account of misbranding and in the absence of any such clear averments, it cannot be said that the consumers are mislead or misdirected. Further, there is a delay in issuing 13(2) Notice and the details of misbranding has not been mentioned. In view of the above, the complaint against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 8. Further, there is a delay in issuing 13(2) Notice and the details of misbranding has not been mentioned. In view of the above, the complaint against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in S.M.M.F.No.15 of 2011, on the file of the learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, is quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.