Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1447 (RAJ)

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan

2018-07-09

G.R.MOOLCHANDANI

body2018
JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. This petition is directed against the criminal proceedings sub-judice before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, Bharatpur, in Criminal Case No. 543/2011 State v. Bunty, for the offence/s punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the petitioner has made a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings. 2. In nutshell, a complaint was filed before the court below by Food Inspector, pleading that during inspection on 18.4.2010, three packets of Brooke Bond Taj Mahal Brand tea, each weighing 245 gram, were bought for examination and sampling, which were later found by the laboratory to be ‘misbranded’ because of non conforming to Rule 42(ZZZ)(17) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1955’). 3. Heard submissions of both the sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Taj Mahal Brand tea, a renowned tea leaf, has got no relevance being Non-Veg and nothing of alleged misbranding has been detected nor established, sheer displaying of symbol denoting product being ‘Veg’ or ‘Non Veg’ has alleged to have not been placed at given spot, which is not tenable since commodity of tea leaf is always ‘Veg’ and prescribed symbol indicating inherent quality of the product was printed on the package of the product at a conspicuous spot, worthy to be spotted easily by the buyer, as such compliance of Rule 42(ZZZ)(17) has also been adhered to and there was no transgression to any provision of law. Petitioner company is a consumer product manufacturing entity of repute and has wrongly been implicated. Learned court below has erred in passing impugned order of cognizance, which deserves to be quashed and has further submitted to allow the petition and to quash criminal proceedings in support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on the following authorities :- 1. Omparkash Shivprakash v. K.I. Kuriakose, (1999) 8 SCC 633 2. A.K. Roy v. State of Punjab, (1986) 4 SCC 326 3. Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 4. Rupak Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 4 SCC 277 : 2014 (2) RLW 1087 (SC) 5. Kunti Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 WLN (UC) 331 6. Glaxo India Ltd. v. State of Assam, (2003) 1 GLR 407 7. Prem Kumar Agrawal v. The State of Bihar, (Cr. Misc. No. 7197/2008 decided on 24.07.2008) 8. Rupak Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 4 SCC 277 : 2014 (2) RLW 1087 (SC) 5. Kunti Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 WLN (UC) 331 6. Glaxo India Ltd. v. State of Assam, (2003) 1 GLR 407 7. Prem Kumar Agrawal v. The State of Bihar, (Cr. Misc. No. 7197/2008 decided on 24.07.2008) 8. Vinita Bali v. The State of Bihar, (Cr. Misc. No. 57249/2007 decided on 28.07.2008) 9. Jay Prakash Tekriwal @ Jay Prakash v. The State of Bihar, (Cr. Misc. No. 37361/2007 decided on 05.02.2010) 10. M.N. Katharmytheen v. The State, (Cr. Original Petition (MD) No. 6891/2010 decided on 11.08.2010) 11. Rungta Tea Company v. The State of Bihar, (Cr. Misc. No. 9932/2009 decided on 06.01.2011) 12. Gopaldas Keshwani v. State of M.P., (M. Cr. C. No. 10291/2013 decided on 16.12.2013) 13. Hindustan Unilever Limited v. The State of Bihar, (Criminal Misc. No. 45209/2012 decided on 24th July, 2014) 14. Swapnil S. Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2017 (1) WLC (Raj.) UC 697 Learned State counsel has contended that petition deserves to be dismissed, since petitioner has violated Rule 42(ZZZ)(17). 4. Report of the Public Analyst, Annexure-5, by which the product has been held to be misbranded, describes as under :- “5. Symbol for Veg.--= Labelled, contravene to Rule 42(ZZZ)(17).” And opinion of the Public Analyst describes :- “This sample of Tea (Brooke Bond Taj Mahal) bearing code & Sr. No. C-4700 of L(H)A Bharatpur is ‘Misbranded’, it does not conform to the provisions of PFA act and Rule. Green Symbol for vegetarian food is not labelled as per provisiosn of Rule 42(ZZZ)(17).” Rule 42(ZZZ)(17) of the Rules of 1955, postulates:- “Every package of Vegetarian Food shall bear the following symbol in green colour on the principal display panel just close in proximity to name or brand name of the Food, namely:-” 5. The present case indicts that symbol denoting commodity being Veg was placed on the packaged commodity but the same was displayed at deviated place. Indisputably, contents of tea leaf are “inherently” Veg and green symbol insigma stipulated under Rule 42(ZZZ)(17) was invariably displayed on the carton of the commodity, easily noticeable by the buyer. The present case indicts that symbol denoting commodity being Veg was placed on the packaged commodity but the same was displayed at deviated place. Indisputably, contents of tea leaf are “inherently” Veg and green symbol insigma stipulated under Rule 42(ZZZ)(17) was invariably displayed on the carton of the commodity, easily noticeable by the buyer. The very factual aspect fulfills intent of displaying the symbol, nature of the commodity is inherently Veg, since tea leaf is itself a dry and processed for of “Chamellia Sinensis” botanically known by this nomenclature, it is not case of the prosecution that prescribed symbol was not displayed, but it was not exhibited in the proximity to the name and brand of the food. 6. Considering the inherent quality and nature of the product taken for analysis and fact that the prescribed symbol in green colour has invariably been displayed on the product, which amply demonstrates that substantial compliance of Rule 42(ZZZ) (17) of the Rules of 1955 has been adhered to, so prolonging the proceedings would be a sheer abuse of process and in give situation the petitioner could not be proceeded for the indictment of the alleged violation of Rule 42(ZZZ)(17), therefore, keeping in view the inhere quality of the product, same ought not to be termed as ‘misbranded’. For the reasons dealt and deliberated hereinbefore, continuation criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse process of law, therefore, this petition is allowed and criminal proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. 543/2011 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, Bharatpur, are quashed. Parting with, it is appropriate to observe that petitioner M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd., a reputed consumer product producing entity, shall meticulously adhere to with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and its Rules in letter and spirit prospectively in order to alleviate action. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial court for necessary information and compliance forthwith.