M/s. The Raval Gaon Sugar Farm Limited and Others vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Another

Bhawani Singh, J.—The petition, u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been moved by the of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, dated 13-5-1987 (Annexure-\\ P-D/l) since they feel aggrieved by the same.

The Petitioner No. 1 is a company, registered tinder the tympanis Act and is carrying on the business of the manufacture of, sweets, confectionery and other edible items under license issued under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It is carrying: on its business in the State of Maharashtra and the registered office1 of the Co. is at Construction. House, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Bombay. Petitioner No. 2 is- the dealer of Petitioner No. 1 and further, supplies the goods to wholesale dealers and Petitioner No. 3 is, the partner of the firm known as Gupta General Store, Mahajan Baiar, Msndi, arid is ... the whole-sale dealer in the said manufacture of Petitioner No. 1 in the town of Mandi.

Further the case is, that on 21st July, 1986, Sh. S.C. Sharma, Food Inspector visited the premises of Petitioner No. 3 and took a sample of hard boiled sugar confectionary manufactured by Petitioner No. 1 The confectionary, in fact, is contained, in 1 kg. Sealed packet with each crystal of hard boiled sugar weighing 6 grams, wrapped in cellophane wrappers. The sealed, polythene bag contained the following printed declaration: .

RAVALGAON

SWEETS (HEAD BQILBD SUGAR CONFECTIONARY) ORANGECHERRY VARIETY:

NET WT: 1 KG (INCLUSIVE OF IMMEDIATE WRAPPER) DATE OF PACKING APRIL 87 CODE NO:

MAXIMUM PRICE Rs

(LOCAL TAXES EXTRA)

''ARTIFICIALLY COVERED'' AND ''ARTIFICIALLY FLAVOURED'':

THE RAVAL GAON SUGAR FARM LTD. CONSTRUCTION HOUSE WAL CHAND HIRA CHAND MARG BOMBAY-400038.

Factory at Ravalgaon 423108, Distt. Nasik

The Food Injector took out a few balls out of the main container and sent the same to the Chemical Analyst without sending the whole packet or at least the covering of the packet. Although the same was taken out of the whole packet since the Petitioner No. 3 does not deal in any loose sale of the confectionery. As a result of the analysis," the Public Analyst, reported as under :

Labelling on 6 gm. PE package of hard boiled sugar Confectionary:

Ravalgaon hard boiled sugar Confectionary, the name and business address of the manufacturer and extraneous addition of coloring matter is not mentioned.

Added colouring matter-Sun Set Yellow.

Sulphated ash=0.06;

Ash insoluble in dil. Hcl = Nil.

The name and business address of manufacturer and extraneous addition of colorings matter is not mentioned on the label of 6 gm. PE package of hard boiled sugar Confectionary whereas the contents found artificially colored with permitted coal tar dye Sun Set yellow.

On the, basis of this report of the Chemical Analyst, the Food Inspector filed a complaint u/s 7 read with Section 16(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954,and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, summoned the accused to -appear before him on 14 -3-1987 On 27-2-1987 the Petitioners moved an application for quashing of the proceedings saying that on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, no offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act had been made out. In this application it was also pointed out that each piece of hard boiled sugar confectionary contained in the l kg. Packet was individually wrapped in a cellophane wrapper solely for the purpose of protecting each ball from deterioration or damage due to moisture etc. It was also pointed out that the sample packet was contained in "a bigger container of sealed polythene packet which had not been sent to the Public Analyst and instead only a few globules of the confectionary were sent and the Public Analyst only saw the wrapper on the individual globules and did not see the main wrapper which contained these globules of confectionary..:In this way, the Public Analyst was in error in reporting that the name and business address of the manufacturer and extraneous addition of coloring matter was not mentioned on the label of the 6 gm. package of hard boiled sugar confectionary whereas the contents were found artificially colored with permitted coal tar dye Sun Set yellow.

This plea of the Petitioner has not been dealt with by the trying Magistrate since it issued the impugned order making no mention of this application.

Sh. Chhabil Dass, who appears for the Petitioners, has very strenuously contended that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and his clients saved from harassment since the order of the Chief. Judicial Magistrate is non-speaking and the allegations as they are, do not, at all constitute any offence under the Prevention of Rood Adulteration Act and the rules made there under. In order to support these submissions, Sh. Ghhabil Dass refers to the impugned order. There is substance in this submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. The Petitioners bad moved a specific application to the court for the dropping of the proceedings on the basis that no offence had been committed by them. This application is available on the record of this case and it appears that the trying Magistrate did not care to see it before passing the impugned order. Since, no reference to the same has been made in the order dated 13-5-1987. Further, it is not clear .from the perusal of which documents and on what grounds and evidence, the learned trying Magistrate came to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed further in the matter against the Petitioners.

The result is that the order is thoroughly Cryptic and does not disclose the application of proper judicial mind by the trying Magistrate. The same is accordingly set-aside.

Proceeding further to examine the case on merits, it appears quite clear that the Public Analyst analyzed the pieces of the hard boiled sugar confectionary of 6 gms. Weight wrapped in separate covers whereas the package, which contained 1kg weight of the same; was not sent to the Public Analyst of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act; 1954 "Package" is defined as under :

"Package" means a box, bottle, casket, tin, barrel, case, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article or food is placed or packed;

For the purpose of "package" therefore, the package in this case would definitely be Polythene bag of 1 kg. weight from which the sample of hard boiled sugar confectionary was purchased It was this package which had the label of specifications of the name of business address as well as other requirements necessary to be mentioned in this regards It appears that this package was not transmitted to the Public Analyst with the result that the report in the present case has been made and the individual wrapper has been taken to be a package within the meaning: of Section 2(x) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The requirement of label under Rule 32 Explanation 1, is:

The term ''label'' means a display of written, printed, perforated, stenciled, embossed of stamped matter upon the container (cover laid and/or crown cook) of any food package.

This label also finds mention on the package that has been used by the Petitioners as a package in the present case and the same meets all the requirements of the statutory provisions in this behalf.

My attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court, namely, Gopi Nath and Sons Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, where the facts were quite similar to those in the present case. In this case also, the Petitioner had moved this Court for the quashing of the proceedings u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging, inter alia, that 900 gms. of toffees which were sold to the rood Inspector were taken out of the sealed packages sold by the Petitioner to firm Goel Provision Stores, Parwanoo and the package contained the label with specifications printed thereon; So, the toffees out of the main sealed packet were sold and the package which contained the total quantity of the same was not supplied. This, sample was analyzed not as hard boiled sugar confectionary but as toffees and the standard applicable for toffees and not hard boiled sugar confectionary was applied by the Public Analyst while determining-its quality and purity. The Food Inspector had also admitted in his statement that the sample purchased was court of a sealed package and the said sealed package at that time contained a label bearing printed specifications. This label clearly indicated that the contents were hard boiled sugar confectionary and hot toffees. It was observed that the variation in the report was due to the wrong application of standard otherwise - the container clearly indicated that the contents were hard boiled sugar confectionary and the standard applicable for hard boiled sugar confectionary had to be applied in order to find out, if it was adulterated or otherwise. The learned Judge, thus, held that the article having been analyzed by application of a different standard the conclusion that it was adulterated could not be accepted. As to the other aspect, it was held that the label was there on the package and contained all the specifications and particulars as required. In this case also, each of the sugar balls had been wrapped in same cover and the name or the business address of the manufacturer had not been mentioned on each of such covers and on that account the Public Analyst had remarked that the name or business address of the manufacturer was not mentioned on the label. As a matter of fact, the facts of this case, as already stated are identical and .the view that has been taken is, squarely supported by this decision. This decision has been followed by the High Court of Delhi in a similar case of this firm reported in 1983 (1) F.A.C. 249 (Babu Bali Gulab Cband and Ors. v. Delhi Administration.

The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the Petitioners have not committed the offence they are being tried for and in view of the existing statutory provisions, it can be safety said that at is a lame prosecution and cannot be allowed to continue in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, there is merit in this petition, the same is allowed and the proceedings in case No. 365-1/87-II1/86 u/s 16(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, are hereby quashed and set aside.