JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 8th September, 2014 imposing penalty of Rs. 51,000/- for violation of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (in short "the Act of 2006") and the Regulations made thereunder. 2. Learned counsel submits that after taking sample of tea, it was sent for analysis in the laboratory. A report was then submitted where other than misbranding, nothing adverse was found. The misbranding was found for using words "best before within 12 months". As per Rules and Regulations, it should have been "best before 12 months". The word "within" was found to be objectionable though substance is not changed and otherwise compliance of the rules exist. The penalty has been imposed ignoring the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Ranganatha Reddiar v. The State of Kerala, reported in 1969 (2) SCC 457 and Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Calcutta v. Gold Mohore Investment Company Ltd., reported in 1969 (2) SCC 460 . He has placed further reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in the case of A. Rajasingh & Ors. v. Food Inspector, reported in 2008 (1) FAC 172 , T. Prabhu & Ors. v. The Madras State, reported in 2007 (1) FAC 314 , P. Robert Immanuel & Anr. v. The State Represented by the Food Inspector, reported in 2009 (2) FAC 199 and Delhi High Court in the case of State v. Mahendra Kumar & Ors., reported in 2008(1) FAC 177 and of Kerala High Court in the case of A.V. Sadanandan v. The Food inspector, Alappuzha Municipality, reported in 2007(1) FAC 317 and V.V. Kunhikannan v. State-represented by the Public Prosecutor, reported in 2009(2) FAC 203 , Jharkhand High Court in the case of Oscar Josheph & 1 Anr. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2012 (2) FAC 74 , of Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Madhavan Ganesan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2012 (2) FAC 76 , of Patna High Court in the case of M.D., Anand Aqua, M/s S.B. Industries, Patna v. The State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2011 (1) FAC 265 and Gujarat High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2011 (1) FAC 267 . Therein, similar issue was considered and decided. Therein, similar issue was considered and decided. Looking to the facts given above, impugned order deserves to be quashed. The petitioner has not violated Section 2 (2)(ii) of the Act of 2006, rather compliance of the aforesaid was made. With insertion of word "within" did not change the substance, rather required information on the packet was given as per Act and the Regulations made thereunder. The imposition of penalty of Rs. 51,000/- deserves to be set aside. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. 4. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 5. The Food Safety Officer checked the establishment of the petitioner and seized 8 packets of "Mansukh" Special Tea weighing 250 gms. each. The details were recorded on Form of Notice. As per Rule 2.4.1 (3) of FSS (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 (in short "Regulations, 2011"), the sample was found misbranded. The reports shows misbranding of the product as label was not in accordance to Regulation No. 2.2.2.(10). It was due to use of words "best before within 12 months from the date of packaging" instead "best before 12 months from packaging". After going through the record, I find that date of packaging was mentioned in the label apart from its use within 12 months. The word "within" was added but does not change the substance, hence, it cannot be said to be a case of misbranding in strict terms. The view aforesaid is supported by the judgments (supra). Taking into consideration overall facts of the case, the impugned order dated 8th September, 2014 is quashed. 6. The petition is allowed with the aforesaid.Writ allowed. *******