Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 703 (PNJ)

Tea Leaves v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-28

M.M.S.BEDI

body2010
Judgment M.M.S.BEDI, J. 1. The petitioners seek the quashing of complaint under Sec.16 (1) (a) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Annexure P-3 dated 22.10.2007, and summoning order dated 22.10.2007, Annexure P-4 and all the proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. The case of the prosecution against the petitioners is that on 30.03.2007, the Food Inspector inspected the premises of M/s Singla Traders and took the samples of Tea Leaves from the packer of which the address of the manufacturer and packer was described as follows: - tea, packed by MTL International (P) Ltd. B-35, Udyog Kunj Panki-5, Kanpur, net Weight: 250g code JY/yd, Repacked 01/07 Best before 12 months from date of packing, MOHANI Tea Leaves (P) Ltd-61/211, CANAL Road, Kanpur. Although the ingredients of the sample fulfilled all the requisites as per the Rules but the prosecution was launched solely on the ground that the project had not been lebelled in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Rules, 1955 as the complete address of its packer has not been given as such, the sample was described as misbranded. I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Rules, 1955, reads as follow: - "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. (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 bottle 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 name and complete address of the manufacturer or the company, for and on whose behalf it is manufactured or packed or bottled;. . . . . . . . . " The short question which is required to be determined in this case is as to what could be said to be "complete address" of manufacturing or packing unit. This question came up before this Court and it has been held that though the term complete address has not been defined under the Rules framed under the Act, but in normal circumstances, these words have been interpreted to mean that it should be sufficient to reach the person. Drawing an analogy from Rule 10 from Standard weighment and Measurement Package Commodities Rules,1977 which reads as follow:- "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. . . . ." 3. It can be said that the "complete address" would be that address where its manufacturer and packer identified and located. 4. Considering the address given on the package as mentioned hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that the above said address is sufficient enough and should be considered as complete address of the manufacturer and the packaging agency. The launching of prosecution and continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court and is an arbitrary act on the part of the respondents to prosecute the petitioners. The petition is allowed. 5. The complaint Annexure P3 as well as summoning order Annexure p-4, and all the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. 6. The petitioner will be entitled to costs of Rs.10,000/-to be paid by the State.