AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—This petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C. No. 645 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Karur, Karur District and quash the same insofar as the Petitioners are concerned.
Heard both sides.
Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this petition would run thus:
The Food Inspector concerned lodged a complaint before the learned Magistrate u/s 7(ii) and 16(1)(a)(i) and read with Section 2(ix)(k) and Rules 37 of PFA Rules 1955 and PFA Act, 1954, on the main ground that the Petitioners herein who are arrayed as accused, have been packing and selling chillies after misbranding the same. According to the prosecution case, on the cover of the label, there is a depiction of Vegetables like Tomato, Carrot, and (whole) Masala products like Red Chilly, Turmeric, Red gramdal, Uriddal, Coriander fenugreek etc.
The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners/accused placing reliance on the grounds as found set out in this Criminal Original Petition would run thus:
The Honourable Apex Court in Parakh Foods Ltd. v. State of A.P and Anr. reported in CDJ 2008 SC 576, highlighted and spotlighted thus:
In the present case, it is true that the Appellant has used pictures of vegetables on the label of the product which is refined soyabean oil, which according to the Appellant is to depict the purpose for which the oil can be used, viz., preparation of the vegetables depicted thereon. Unless the picture depicted on a label of edible oils and fats exaggerates the quality of the product, it would not fall within the mischief of Rule 37 D. In the present case, the vegetables shown on the label of soyabean oil does not in any way indicate that the quality of soyabean oil is ''super-refined'', ''extra-refined'', ''micro-refined'', ''double-refined'', ''ultra-refined'', ''anti-cholesterol'', ''cholesterol fighter'', ''soothing to heart'', ''cholesterol friendly'', ''saturated fat free'' etc., nor it indicates the exaggeration towards the quality of the product to come within the mischief of Rule 37 D of the PFA Rules. In our opinion, the High Court has committed a serious error in arriving at a finding that the article of food (soyabean oil) was misbranded since the picture contained on the label has nothing to do with the article of food in question, completely ignoring the fact that the article of food can be used for cooking the vegetables shown in the picture which cannot be said to be exaggerating the quality of the food in question.
The aforesaid decision, more specifically, the aforesaid excerpt, would exemplify and demonstrate, display and convey that the mere depiction of certain caricatures purely for the purpose of pointing out that the product could be used for such depicted sausages or dishes, cannot be termed as misbranding. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the said decision is squarely applicable to the present case as in this case, the Chilly powder was packed and sold with the labels emblazoned with the caricatures of Vegetables like Tomato, Carrot, and (whole) Masala products like Red Chilly, Turmeric, Red gramdal, Uriddal, Coriander fenugreek etc. Accordingly, he prays for quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No. 645 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Karur, Karur District.
The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that this is a genuine case and that it amounts to misbranding only.
A mere perusal of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court would unambiguously and unequivocally would point out that Rule 37 D of Preventive of Food Adulteration Rules, should be understood in an appropriate sense and the term "of the same kind" should be understood properly because the principle of ejusdem generis has to be applied in understanding and interpreting the said Rule 37 D of the P.F.A Rules. I need not further dilate on that point.
In the case at hand, it is clear that the Petitioners have been selling the Chilly powder in the packet displaying the pictures of Vegetables like Tomato, Carrot, and (whole) Masala products like Red Chilly, Turmeric, Red gramdal, Uriddal, Coriander fenugreek etc, so as to point out that the said Chilly powder can be used for cooking such vegetables. In such a case, by no stretch of imagination or even by phantasmagorical thoughts, it cannot be taken as misbranding. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated by filing the complaint in C.C. No. 645 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Karur, Karur District, have to be quashed.
In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and accordingly, the said complaint and the related proceedings in C.C. No. 645 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Karur, Karur District, are quashed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.