Harsh Kumar Jain and Others vs State

A.K. Pathak

Prosecution of the petitioners has been launched by respondent u/s 16 of the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act, 1954 (''the Act'', for short). Petitioner no. 9 is the company; whereas petitioner nos. 1 to 8 are the Directors of petitioner no. 9. Violation of Rule 32 by the petitioners has been alleged. Sample of Ghee, which was taken by the Food Inspector meets the standard and was not found adulterated, as per the report of Public Analyst. However, same was declared as "misbranded" on the ground hat misleading information was given with regard to "best before use" inasmuch as "date of manufacturing" was not given, instead "date of packaging" was mentioned on the packet. It was also mentioned that "best before 15 months". It is not in dispute that vide policy No. F6(228)/85/ENF/P/FA a decision was taken by the Department of Prevention of Food Adulteration. Govt. of NCT Delhi as for back 1985 to the effect that in case the contents of the sealed packets or container conform the standards laid down under the PFA Rules, deficiency with regard to Rule 32, which pertains to the particulars of the labeling on the container or packet, was only a technical offence and in such cases, party concerned be given a written warning drawing his attention to Rule 32. However, even after written warning, party concerned commits the offence second time, he should be prosecuted. In view of this policy, in my view, respondent was not justified in straightway launching the prosecution with regard to the first offence that too without issuing the warning. In the similar circumstances, a Single Judge of this Court in S.S. Gokul Krishnan and Others Vs. State, has quashed the prosecution. Similar is the course adopted in Mahashian Di Haiti Pvt. Ltd. v. State (Delhi Administration), 1993 (2) PFAC, 245. It may further be noted that in respect of one of the Directors of petitioner no. 9 prosecution has been quashed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 8th March, 2011 passed in Crl.M.C. No. 27/2010 titled Ravinder Garg vs. State through Food Inspector (PFA) Government of NCT of Delhi.

For the foregoing reasons, order of summoning dated 15th April, 2006 and the complaint case no. 104/06 titled Department of PFA, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Ram Niwas and Ors. under Sections 7/ 16 of the Act pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, are quashed. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.