ORDER 1. Respondents 1 and 2 and some others were charged for an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act) on the ground that they had misbranded their product. It is the prosecution case that when the Food Inspector went to purchase bottled water manufactured and bottled by the said respondents, the Assistant Plant In-charge of the respondents factory told the said Inspector that the water contained in the bottle which is being sold to him was mineral water and it is based on the said representation of that Assistant Plant In-charge, the said Inspector purchased the mineral water which, when analysed, was not found to be mineral water. However, it is to be noted that the label of the bottle containing water which was sold to the said Inspector did nowhere mention that the water contained in the said bottle was mineral water. 2. Obviously, based on the representation made by the Assistant Plant In-charge to the said Inspector, the respondents and others were charged for offences mentioned as hereinabove. The High Court by the impugned order has allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents herein and directed the discharge of the respondents on the basis that no case was made out to proceed against these respondents. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. It is an admitted fact that there is no mention on the label of the bottle that the water contained in the bottle was "mineral water". The question then is would an oral representation made by a staff member of the manufacturing company amount to misbranding as contemplated in the Act? 4. "Misbranding" has been defined under Section 2(ix) of the Act. For the purpose of facts of this case, the relevant sub-clause reads thus: "2. (ix) misbranded - an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded- (a)-(d) (e) if false claims are made for it upon the label or otherwise; (f)-V) (k) if it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder;" 5. (ix) misbranded - an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded- (a)-(d) (e) if false claims are made for it upon the label or otherwise; (f)-V) (k) if it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder;" 5. The entire case of the prosecution is that the package containing the water in question was sold to the Inspector with an oral representation made by the Assistant Plant In-charge as mineral water but this in our opinion does not constitute an offence attracting the provisions of Section. 7 of the Act. In our opinion, .the case of the prosecution does not also fall under sub-clause (e) or (k) of Section 2 of the Act. In Our opinion, this appeal is liable to be dismissed Oh this short ground. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Crt. As. Nos. 1034-35 and 1036 012001 6. These appeals are filed by the co-accused against certain observations made by the High Court in its impugned judgment. In the connected matter, we have held today that there is no misbranding of the products sold by the respondents to the Inspector who purchased the same. We have decided the said appeal on the above short ground and we are of the opinion that all other a observations made in the judgment were not necessary for disposal of the petition before the High Court, therefore, it is open to the appellants herein to put forward their defence based on the above findings of ours before the trial court. 7. With the above observations, these appeals are disposed of.