Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 958 (MP)

S. S. Marketing v. Municipal Corporation, Indore

2015-09-09

S.C.SHARMA

body2015
ORDER : S.C. SHARMA, J. 1. Regard being had to the similar controversy involved in above cases, they have been heard analogously together with the consent of the parties and a common order is being passed in the matter. Facts of M CRC N o. 2411/2014 are narrated as under:- 2. The petitioner before this court has filed this present petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of Criminal Case No. 30735/2010 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class-Indore. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s S.S. Marketing and Distributor of Hindustan Unilever Limited earlier known as Hindustan Lever Limited. The Food Inspector Municipal Corporation Indore visited the shop of the petitioner on 13-04-2010 and lifted the sample of Brooke Bond Tea bags for analysis. He lifted 12 pouches containing 25 tea bags each. It has been further stated that one carton contains 180 such pouches. The sample of the product in question was sent to Public Analyst for analysis and Public Analyst by report dated 27-04-2010 has held that the tea bags are misbranded because on the label of the alleged multi-piece package, the declaration of the month and year upto which the product is best for consumption is not mentioned. He has observed that there is violation of Sub-rule (i) and (l) of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1954. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the Brooke Bond Tea Bags are sold in cartons by the petitioner as a whole sale pack or an institutional pack, mainly in the railway channel and are not sold individually. Each carton contains 180 pouches having 25 tea bags each and there is a declaration in whole sale package, categorically declaring the date of manufacture, the lot number and best before use date. His contention is that by no stretch of imagination a case is made out of violation of Sub-rule (i) and (l) of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It has also been stated that the licence required for the purpose of selling the commodity was also in existence and the same has also been brought on record of this court. The Firm in question is having such licence right from the year 2007. 5. It has also been stated that the licence required for the purpose of selling the commodity was also in existence and the same has also been brought on record of this court. The Firm in question is having such licence right from the year 2007. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation, Indore has vehemently argued before this court that it was obligatory on the part of the present petitioner as well as on the part of the Hindustan Unilever Limited to mention the date of manufacture, best before use date and lot number of every pack and as it was not mentioned it was a clear violation of sub-rule (i) and (l) of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He has argued before this court that at the time of inspection licence was not produced before the competent authority and, therefore, a complaint has not been filed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In the present case, the tea bags manufactured by Hindustan Unilever Limited are the subject matter of the dispute. The tea bags in question are normally the tea bags which are used for preparing tea by dipping it in hot water and are made up of special material and in order to avoid any carcinogenic substance over the tea bags, it is ensured that no printing of any kind is done on the teabags. They are manufactured with great care and caution. The tea bags manufactured by Hindustan Unilver Limited are packed in small pouches and they are again packed in a carton. One such carton contains 180 pouches and each pouches contains about 25 tea bags. It is an undisputed fact that the date of manufacture is in existences over each and every carton, the lot number is in existence over each and every carton, best before use date is in existences on each and every carton. Rule 32 (i) (l) and (h) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 reads as under :- "(i) the month and year in capital letters upto which the product is best for consumption, in the following manner, namely:- "Best Before ..........Months And Year or "Best Before .................Months from Packaging or Best Before ................Months From Manufacture OR Best Before Upto Month and Year ...... Best Before Within................Months From the Date of Packaging/Manufacture (For the period upto and inclusive of 1st September 2001) (Note:- blank be filled up). (l) Exemptions from labeling requirements :- (i) Where the surface area of the package is not more than 100 square centimeters, the label of such package shall be exempted from the requirements of list of ingredients, Lot Number or Batch Number or Code Number, Nutritional information and instructions for use, but these informations shall be given on the whole sale packages or multi piece packages, as the case may be. (ii) the date of manufacture' or' best before date' or 'expiry date' may not be required to be mentioned on the package having surface area of less than 10 square centimeter, but these information shall be given on the wholesale packages or multi piece packages, as the case may be. (iii) in case of liquid products marketed in bottle, if such bottle is intended to be reused for refilling, the requirement of list of ingredients shall be exempted, but the nutritional information specified in item (vi) of paragraph (2) of clause (b) of Rule 32 shall be given on the bottle. (iv) in case of food with shelf-life of not more than seven days, the 'date of manufacture' may not be required to be mentioned on the label of packaged food articles, but the 'use by date' shall be mentioned on the label by the manufacturer or packer. (h) Irradiated foods-The label of a food, which has been treated with ionizing radiation, shall carry a written statement indicating the treatment in close proximity to the name of the food." 8. The aforesaid statutory provisions of law also grants exemption from labeling requirements and it provides that where the surface area of bag is not more than 100 square centimeter, label of such bag shall be exempted and information shall be given on wholesale packages or multi piece packages, as the case may be. In the present case the labelling requirement is squarely covered under the exemption clause as the whole sale package contains all the required informations as required under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1954 and, therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that on the basis of the complaint filed by the Food Inspector no case is made out in the matter and the complaint deserves to be quashed. 9. 9. The other ground raised in the present case is that the licence was not produced at the time of inspection. In the complaint in paragraph-2, it has been stated that process fee licence was not available at the time of inspection was carried out and only a photo copy of licence was made available. In the present case the applicant has subsequently filed a document, which is on record and the same establishes that licence for the year 2014 was in existence and licence were originally granted in the year 2007 and therefore in the considered opinion of this court keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petitioner has been able to make out a case of interference in exercise of powers conferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Facts of MCRC N o. 2413/2014 are narrated as under:- 10. The petitioner before this court has filed this present petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of Criminal Case No. 20556/2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class-Indore. 11. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is proprietor of M/s Kashijeet Marketing and Distributor of Hindustan Unilever Limited earlier known as Hindustan Lever Limited. The Food Inspector Municipal Corporation Indore visited the shop of the petitioner on 17-12-2008 and lifted the sample of "Kisan Brand Tomato Ketchup" as a sample. The sample of the product in question was sent to Public Analyst for analysis and Public Analyst by report dated 09-01-2009 has held that the pouches of Tomato Ketchup are misbranded because as per the label declaration, the information regarding date of packaging and batch number was not available on the sachets. He has observed that there is violation of Sub-rule (e) and (f) of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1954. 12. The contention of the learned senior counsel is that the details were certainly mentioned on the each and every carton as it is a case of wholesale package. 13. He has observed that there is violation of Sub-rule (e) and (f) of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1954. 12. The contention of the learned senior counsel is that the details were certainly mentioned on the each and every carton as it is a case of wholesale package. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation, Indore has vehemently argued before this court that it was obligatory on the part of the present petitioner as well as on the part of the Hindustan Unilever Limited to provide the label declaration, the information regarding date of packaging and batch number and as the same was not available on the sachets, it was a clear violation of sub-rule (i) and (l) of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. It an undisputed fact that the whole sale package was containing 'the date of manufacture' and 'best before use date'. Not only this, the Tomato Ketchup sachets is again manufactured and supplied by the Hindustan Unilever Limited, which is again a Company of great repute Company and has taken great caution to mention the date over the whole sale package. It has not been denied by the Indore Municipal Corporation that date is not in existence in respect of the whole sale packages and therefore this court is of the considered opinion that the present petition also deserves to be allowed and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 20556/2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class-Indore deserves to be quashed. Therefore in the considered opinion of this court, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petitioner has been able to make out a case of interference in exercise of powers conferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The complaint is quashed. 16. In view of the aforesaid, the complaints of both the aforesaid cases are accordingly hereby quashed.