quashed. Learned counsel also argued that a food product would be an infant food as defined in the Rules, only if it is marketed or otherwise represented as a complement to mother's milk and when there is no claim in the product marketed by the petitioner that it is a complement to mother's milk to meet the growing nutritional needs of the infant, by showing the picture of an infant on the carton alone it will not make the banana powder, an infant food as provided under the Rules and therefore on that sole ground the prosecution is to be quashed. Learned counsel also pointed out that when the Food Inspector had purchased the Banatone powder for getting it analysed by the Public Analyst and prepared the samples for forwarding to the Public Analyst, and in fact forwarded one sample to the Public Analyst and the remaining two samples to the Local Health Authority, no prosecution will lie before getting a positive report from the Public Analyst as provided under section 13 of the Act. Learned counsel also argued that when the sample of Banatone in the case was taken on 5.4.2008, Annexure A6 report of the Public Analyst dated 25.1.2008, after examination of Banatone natural banana powder sent for analysis by the same Food Inspector, shows that it is not adulterated. It is argued that when there is no case for the Public Analyst that there is
