Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 365 (PNJ)

Amarjeet Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-03-24

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2004
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - Petitioner Amarjit Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the complaint dated 7.11.2002 (Annexure P-2) filed against him under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and all the subsequent proceedings pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.1.2000, the Food Inspector along with the District Health Officer had inspected the business premises of the petitioner and took a sample of Bharat Salt from the premises of the petitioner for analysis. As per report of the Public Analyst dated 29.2.2000, which has been annexed with this petition as Annexure P-1, the said sample was found to be misbranded as in his opinion, "this product has been labelled as REFINED IODISED SALT PURE FREE FLOWING with ingredients permitted anticaking & free flowing agent whereas under the provisions of Rule 43 of P.F.A. Rules, 1955, label of salt containing added anticaking agent should not contain any word which might imply that the food is PURE." 3. In view of the aforesaid report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector filed the complaint in question before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar on 8.11.2002 i.e. after more than two years in which the petitioner was summoned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the sample in question was misbranded by the Public Analyst on the opinion that under the provisions of Rule 43 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) the label of salt containing added anticaking agent should not contain any word which might imply that the food is pure. The said opinion of the Public Analyst does not apply to the facts of the case as sub-rule (5) of Rule 43 of the Rules exempts the application of Rule as under :- "Nothing contained in this Rule shall apply in the case of sweets, confectionery, biscuits, bakery products, processed fruits, (aerated waters, vegetables and flavouring agents)." 5. Thus, the aforesaid sub-rule does not apply to flavouring agents and by virtue of Rule 63 of the Rules, salt being a flavouring agents, the word Pure is allowed to be contained on the label of salt. 6. Thus, the aforesaid sub-rule does not apply to flavouring agents and by virtue of Rule 63 of the Rules, salt being a flavouring agents, the word Pure is allowed to be contained on the label of salt. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar question earlier came before this Court for consideration in Baldev Raj v. State of Punjab, 2002(3) RCR(Criminal) 483, in which also the sample of salt was taken and the same was found to be misbranded on the same ground. This Court after considering every provisions of the Rules, has come to the following conclusion :- "8. From a perusal of the above, it would be clear that as per the Public Analyst, the sample was according to the prescribed standard. However, the only infirmity found by the Public Analyst, was that on the label, the iodized salt was declared as "Shudh Khadya Namak" in Hindi, whereas, as per Rule 43 of the Rules, the label should not contain any words which might imply that the product is pure. 9. It is no doubt true that under Rule 43(1) of the Rules, there is prohibition that the labels, on the article of food, which contain an addition, admixture or deficiency, should not contain any words, which might imply that the food was pure. However, as per Rule 43(5) of the Rules, this prohibition shall not apply in the case of sweets, confectionery, bakery products, processed fruits, aerated waters, vegetables and flavouring agents. Thus, if iodized salt was a flavouring agent, the prohibition, contained in Rule 43(1) would not apply to the case of iodized salts. Under Rule 63 of the Rules, Flavouring Agents have been defined. There are three types of Flavouring Agents, namely, Natural Flavours and Natural Flavouring Substances, Nature Identical Flavouring Substances and Artificial Flavouring Substances. From a perusal of the definition of Flavouring Agents, given in Rule 63 of the Rules, it would be clear that the iodized salt is a Flavouring Agents, include Flavouring Substances. Flavour Extracts or Flavour Preparations, which are capable of imparting flavour properties, namely taste or odour or both to food. So far as the iodized salt is concerned, if iodized salt is put in any food article, it would certainly change the taste of the said article of food. Under the circumstances, it could certainly be said that the iodized salt is a flavouring agent. So far as the iodized salt is concerned, if iodized salt is put in any food article, it would certainly change the taste of the said article of food. Under the circumstances, it could certainly be said that the iodized salt is a flavouring agent. From a perusal of Rule 63 of the rules, it could not be said that the iodized salt, defined in Clause A 15.01 or Appendix B of the Rules, is not a flavouring agent. 10. Once it is found that the iodized salt is a flavouring agent, it would be clear that the prohibition, contained in Rule 43(1) of the Rules, prohibiting the use of words on the label, which might imply that the foods is pure, would have no application in the case of iodized salt. That being so, in my opinion, it could not be said that the sample of iodized salt was in any manner misbranded. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the filing of the criminal complaint and the continuation of proceedings, would amount to abuse of the process of law." 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court, which has been subsequently followed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 5672-M of 2001 (Puran Chand v. State of Punjab), decided on 4.7.2002 and Crl. Misc. No. 48559-M of 2001 (Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab), decided on 8.7.2002. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent-State could not dispute the aforesaid factual position or cite any contrary judgment. 9. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and the complaint dated 7.11.2002 (Annexure P-2) filed against him under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and all the subsequent proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.