Shri Babu Ram and Another vs The State

S.S. Sodhi, J

The matter here concerns curry powder or rather the label on a package of curry powder The declaration on this label proclaimed that it contained edible common salt to the extent of per cent. On analysis of a sample thereof, however, it was found instead to be 3.3 per cent. Did this amount to an offence warranting the prosecution of the Petitioners u/s 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ? This is the short point that falls for determination in revision.

A reference to the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the rules made thereunder (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'' and ''the Rules'' respectively), shows that edible common salt to the extent of 5 per cent is permitted in curry powder as per the standard laid down in A. 05.21 of Appendix-B of the Rules.

Further, there is no requirement of law that the label of curry powder must mention the extent of edible common salt therein. This would be apparent from a plain reading of Rule 42(1) before and after its amendment in February, 1983. The unamended rule was in the following terms:-

Every package of curry powder shall bear label upon which is printed a declaration giving per centage of edible common salt and the names of spices in descending order of composition on wt/wt basis.

The amended rule now reads as under:-

Every package of curry powder shall bear a label upon which is printed a declaration giving the names of spices in descending order of composition on wt/wt./basis.

The deletion of the words "percentage of edible salt" leaves no-manner of doubt that extent of it need not be stated on the label.

Such being the situation, the relevant provision that survives for consideration is regarding mis-branding, that is, Section 2(ix)(g) of the Act which, is reproduced hereunder:-

If the package containing it, or the label on the package bears any statement, design or device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which is false or misleading in any material particular; or if the package is otherwise deceptive with respect to its contents.

It will be seen that an article of food can be declared to be mis-branded only if its label is false or misleading in any material particular. This can, by no means, be said to be the case here, with the deviation in the sample from the declaration on the label being on such an insignificant nature, that is, of only 0 3 per cent and that too of merely edible common salt. The prosecution of the Petitioners in such circumstances is clearly uncalled for and consequently the charge framed against them u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act cannot be sustained and is accordingly hereby quashed. 7. This revision petition is thus accepted.