Dharam Pal Gulati vs State of Jharkhand and Another

R.R. Prasad, J.—Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. On 14/07/2011, the Food Inspector, collected the samples of Peacock Kasoori Methi from M/s. Reliance Fresh Limited. That sample collected was sent to Mineral Area Development Authority (MADA) for its chemical analysis. On 23/07/2011, the Public Analyst submitted its report, reporting therein that Kasoori Methi is not labelled in accordance with the requirement of Rule 32(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and, as such, it is misbranded in terms of Section 2(ix)(k) of the Act. On such allegation, a complaint was filed against the petitioner, who happens to be the Managing Director of M/s. Mahashian De Hatti Ltd., Rajasthan and the Officials of Reliance Fresh Limited. Upon which, cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, was taken vide order dated 05/09/2011, which is under challenge.

Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since ''Best Before Use'' have not been printed over the packets in capital letters, the prosecution has been launched. In this respect, it was submitted that it is true that those words were required to be written in bold letters over the packets but those words are there, not in bold letters but in small letters and, thereby, it can be said that there has been sufficient compliance of Rule 32 of the said Rules and under this situation, the petitioner never warrants to be prosecuted. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions rendered in the case of "M.D. Anand Aqua versus. The State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2010 (3) PLJR, 31" and also in the case decided by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 663 of 2009 (Oscar Josheph & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.).

Misbranded has been defined in Section 2(ix) of the Act, which reads as follows:-

(ix) "misbranded" - an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded-

(a) to (j).....

(k) if it is not labelled in accordance wit the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder.

Rule 32 of the Act envisages that month and year upto which the product is best for consumption should be in capital letter in the flowing manner. The manner indicates "BEST BEFORE.......MONTH AND YEAR".

Since, the aforesaid clause was not written in capital letters over the packets of Kasoori Methi, seized from the store of M/s. Reliance Fresh Limited, the prosecution has been launched against the petitioner. It has never been the case that the clause, which was required to be there under Rule 32, was never there over the packets, rather it was there but in small letters and, therefore, there was sufficient compliance of Rule 32. The same view has been taken earlier by this Court and also by the Patna High Court.

Under such situation, the prosecution of the petitioner seems to be unwarranted.

Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution of C IV 26/11, pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Ranchi, including the order dated 05/09/2011, taking cognizance , is hereby quashed. In the result, this application stands allowed.