Lipton India Limited vs State of H.P. and Others

Bhawani Singh, J.—This petition u/s 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure seeks to quash the proceedings which are pending before the trial Court in pursuance of the complaint of the Food Inspector, Shimla for violation of the provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 7 and Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereafter shortly ''the Act'').

The Petitioner-company is carrying the business of manufacture of tea and other allied products. It has appointed stockists and dealers at various places in the country. For the distribution of their tea at Shimla, Dharam Santosh Enterprises, 166 Sajan Niwas, Anaj Mandi, Shimla has been appointed as stockist and the third Respondent is the partner of this firm. The second Respondent visited the premises of the form on 21-3-1987 and purchased three sealed packets, containing 250 grams of tea Richbru Brand, manufactured by the company, for the purpose of analysis.

The sample was sent to the Public analyst, H.P. at Kandaghat. On test, the sample was found in accordance with the standard laid down for tea, however, the Public Analyst expressed his opinion as under:

The batch number is not mentioned on the label of 250 gr. packet of tea.

As a result of this kind of opinion, the Health Authority gave consent u/s 20 of the Act and a complaint (Annexure-PB) was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla on 7-10-1987. Case No. 38/3/87 was registered and at the instance of the third Respondent, the company was also added as one of the accused in the case. The Court issued summons to the accused in the case. This order of the Court has been challenged through this petition by the company submitting, inter alia, that the provisions of Rule 32(e) of the Act are ultravires of the powers of Central Government and due to the invalidity of the Rule, no offence is committed and the compaint filed by the Food Inspector deserves to be quashed. It is also submitted in the alternative that the requirement of the Rule is only that the label should contain a batch number or code number in Hindi or English, numerical or alphabet. So, in case there is no batch number, there has to be code number, but the Public Analyst has not said anything on this account.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of the submissions made herein above, the complaint cannot survive and the proceedings deserve to be quashed. On the point of invalidity of Rule 32(e), reliance was placed on Dwarka Nath and Another Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, From the perusal of this judgment, the first submission of the id. counsel for the Petitioner has full force and in view of this decision of Apex Court, no offence can be said to have been committed by the company.

There is force in the alternative submission of the learned Counsel, since it is found that the tea packet duly contains the code number, thus, fulfilling the requirement of the Rule.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint initiated by the Food Inspector and further proceedings taken by the trial Court in pursuance of this complaint, do not survive and they are accordingly quashed.