JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral):- This order shall dispose of five Criminal Misc. bearing Nos. 6695-M, 6696-M, 6697-M of 2007, 8929-M and 8930-M of 2008 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions. 2. For facility facts are being taken from Crl.Misc. No.6695-M of 2008 titled Mr. Hasmukh Mewada Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.. 3. These petitions have been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) for quashing of the complaints as well as subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in the complaint cases filed against the petitioners. 4. A Criminal complaint has been filed on behalf of the State under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the Act). It is the case of the prosecution that on 8.2.2005 at about 2 PM the complainant under the supervision of Dr.V.K. Kakkar DHO inspected the premises of M/s Mallanpur Dhakhan Cold Drinks situated near G.H.G. Khalsa College, Ludhiana Road, Gurusar Sudhar, District Ludhiana where Barinder Singh was present and he was having in his possession about 15 crates of Mirinda, each crate containing 21 bottles of 300 ml to be meant for sale for human consumption which were manufactured by Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages Ltd.Phillour-144410, accused No.2. Jeewan Deep Singh son of Uday Prakash resident of House No.8l13 Durga Puri Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana was joined as an independent witness. 5. The complainant after disclosing his identify as Food Inspector demanded a sample of 300 ml each bottle for analysis after giving notice in Form-6 which was duly signed by the accused and witness Jeewan Deep Singh. 6. The accused was also directed to disclose ownership of M/s Mallanpur Dhakhan Cold Drinks which was under the proprietorship of the accused who was responsible person for conduct of business of the firm. Six bottles of Mirinda 300 ml were purchased for analysis against proper receipt which was signed by the complainant and the witness. A bill was also obtained in this regard. Notice was also issued to other accused. The sample so purchased was divided into 3 equal parts and was wrapped separately in strong thick papers. All necessary steps to secure the sample were also taken. Sample was sent for analysis to Public Analyst, Punjab Chandigarh. 7. A bill was also obtained in this regard. Notice was also issued to other accused. The sample so purchased was divided into 3 equal parts and was wrapped separately in strong thick papers. All necessary steps to secure the sample were also taken. Sample was sent for analysis to Public Analyst, Punjab Chandigarh. 7. However, the only deficiency found in the sample was that the label of product was not labelled in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration, Rules 1955 (for short the Rules) as the complete address of the manufacturer had not been given. Hence it was held to be misbranded and on these allegations the present complaint was filed. 8. The petitioners have sought quashing of the complaint on the plea that even if the allegations are taken on their face value there is no violation of Rule 32 of the Rules as the product contains the complete address of manufacture. The petitioners claim that the company is in the business of manufacturing of cold drinks and Form 6 gives the detail of food as Mirinda FPO 7910, Batch No.25.01.05, best before six months from the date of manufacture and clearly indicates the manufacturer as Dhillon Kool drinks, Phillaur-144410. 9. In exercise of powers conferred under the Act the statutory rules have been framed by the Government to carry out the objects of the Act. Rule 32(c)(i) & (ii) of the Rules deals with packing and labeling of Foods. The relevant part of the said rule is reproduced for ready reference:- “32. 9. In exercise of powers conferred under the Act the statutory rules have been framed by the Government to carry out the objects of the Act. Rule 32(c)(i) & (ii) of the Rules deals with packing and labeling of Foods. The relevant part of the said rule is reproduced for ready reference:- “32. Package of food to carry a label.- Every package of food shall carry a label and unless otherwise provided in these rules, there shall be specified on every label (c) (i) the name and complete address of the manufacturer and the manufacturing unit, if these are located at different places and in case the manufacturer is not the packer or bottler, the name and complete address of the packing or bottling unit as the case may be; (ii) where an article of food is manufactured or packed or bottled by a person or a company under the written authority of some other manufacturer or company, under his or its brand name, the label shall carry the name and complete address of the manufacturing or packing or bottling unit as the case may be, and also the name and complete address of the manufacturer or the company, for and on whose behalf it is manufactured or packed or bottled;........" 10. Though the Rule provides that the name and complete address of the manufacturer and manufacturing unit, if these are located at different places as well as the packer or bottler’s name are required to be given but the word ‘Complete address” has not been defined under the rules framed under the Act. 11. The complaint filed against the petitioners is that they have failed to comply with the Rule 32(c)(i) of the Rules, referred to above, as the address given was not complete. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the reading of the complaint does not disclose any offence against the petitioners and continuation of the proceedings would be nothing but misuse of process of Court. 13. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once under the Rules the word “complete Address” has not been defined, it has to be given an ordinary meaning i.e. to say that address should be sufficient to reach the person. 13. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once under the Rules the word “complete Address” has not been defined, it has to be given an ordinary meaning i.e. to say that address should be sufficient to reach the person. In addition thereto the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on SWM-Standard Weighment and Measurements Package Commodities Rules, 1977 as Rule 10 of the said Rules also deals with declaration of name and address of the manufacturer. The Rule 10 reads as under:- “10. Declaration of Name and Address of the Manufacturer, etc.- (a) Subject to the provisions of rule 7, every package kept, offered or exposed for sale or sold shall bear conspicuously on the package, the name and complete address of the manufacturer, or where the manufacturer, is not the packer, the name and address of the manufacturer and the packer’ Explanation.- “Complete Address” means, in the case of a company, the address at which its registered office is situated, and, in any other case, the name of the street, number (if any) assigned to the premises of the manufacturer or packer, and either the name of the city and State where the business is carried out by the manufacturer or packer or the PIN Code……” 14. The reading of Rule 10 would show that the intention of the rule making authority was that the complete address should be given so that the manufacturer and the packer can be identified and located. The rules framed under the Standard Weighment and Measurements Package Commodities Rules give an option to the manufacturer to either mention the name of the State or the PIN Code. The address given by the petitioner, includes the PIN Code and, therefore, the Food Inspector or person authorised under the Rules have no difficulty in locating the address. 15. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of what has been stated above, the complaint and the summoning order as well as the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. 16. The learned counsel for the State states that as the name of the State is not mentioned, therefore, there is violation of Rule regarding giving of complete address, the product was thus misbranded. 17. 16. The learned counsel for the State states that as the name of the State is not mentioned, therefore, there is violation of Rule regarding giving of complete address, the product was thus misbranded. 17. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to point out that under Rule 32(c)(i) of the Rules as to how the requirement of mentioning State was mandatory. The learned counsel for the State also relied on the definition of the complete address under the Standard Weighment and Measurements Package Commodities Rules to contend that complete address should include State. 18. However, the reading of the rule would clearly show that the word used is “or” not “and”. Once the PIN Code is given the requirement of Standard Weighment and Measurements Package Commodities Rules stands satisfied. 19. The reading of the complaint thus shows that no offence, whatsoever, against the petitioners is made out. Even if the allegations are taken on their face value, the said product can not be said to be misbranded, as is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the State. 20. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the complaint (Annexure P-1) filed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana as well as the summoning order and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed. ----------------