JUDGMENT : In Re: Civil Misc. Exemption Application No. 1 of 2018. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the exemption application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I am satisfied that the applicant-appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the Appeal within the period of limitation. 3. The application is, accordingly, allowed and the delay in filing the Appeal is condoned. Order on Order Sheet : 4. This appeal is filed, under section 71(6) of The Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), against the judgment and order dated 10.5.2018 passed by the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal/District Judge, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2017. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has imposed the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-upon the appellant No.2, who is the manufacturer namely M/s Sri Bala Jee Food Product, A-B Road, Muraina, Madhya Pradesh and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-each upon the appellant Nos. 1 and 3 respectively. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant No. 2-M/s Sri Bala Jee Food Product is having registered Proprietorship concerned and is engaged in manufacturing and sale of Kachchidhani Blended Edible Oil (Laddu Gopal Brand). 6. On suspicion, the respondent No.2, Food Safety Officer, Lalitpur has purchased the aforesaid item from a retail shop and it is contended that the same was sealed for the purpose of sample. The case of the department is that after completing all the formalities, the sample, which was collected, was sent for analysis to the Food Laboratory, Lucknow. 7. After due process, the analysis of the Food Laboratory, Lucknow, has returned the finding that the sample of oil was found 'Misbranded'. In pursuance of the said report, the Food Safety Officer has filed a complaint against the appellants before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Lalitpur, who is an Adjudicating Officer. 8. On the basis of complaint, a complaint was registered against the appellants. The Adjudicating Officer has issued the notices and in pursuance thereto the appellants appeared before the Adjudicating Officer. During the course of adjudicating proceedings, the appellant has adduced several documentary evidence and relevant papers/records. 9. 8. On the basis of complaint, a complaint was registered against the appellants. The Adjudicating Officer has issued the notices and in pursuance thereto the appellants appeared before the Adjudicating Officer. During the course of adjudicating proceedings, the appellant has adduced several documentary evidence and relevant papers/records. 9. After hearing the respective parties, Adjudicating Officer has passed an order imposing the penalty to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- each upon the appellant Nos. 1 and 3 and has imposed the penalty to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- upon appellant No.2-M/s Sri Bala Jee Food Product (manufacturer). 10. The order dated 25.8.2017 of the Adjudicating Officer was challenged before the Tribunal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance of the contents of the impugned judgement passed by the Tribunal, particularly paragraph 6, which is reproduced herein below :- "The appellant's counsel first argued that the report of Food Analyst clearly reveals that incomplete address of the manufacturer, O.P. No.2, on the label of package has been found but no evidence of misbranding of sample is available on record, even though, the penalty for misbranding of article has been imposed. He has also argued that Adjudicating Officer has wrongly imposed fine on appellants on the basis of violation of Rule 2.2.6 of F.S.S. (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011, while the complete address of manufacturer, appellant No.2 has been mentioned on the package, as entire formalities were made on line. Even notices issued by the Food Safety Officer was received on the said address. From No.38 are also filed on line. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the case law of Calcutta High Court, R.K.Mittal Vs. B.Roy Chaudhary and another, 1985(1) Food Adulteration Cases and argued that there is no violation of Rule 2.2.6 of said Regulation 2011. Therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside." 12. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is fully justified as the appellants failed to declare the complete address on the lable of packing material. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned as well as other material evidence which has been filed by the appellant. 14. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is fully justified as the appellants failed to declare the complete address on the lable of packing material. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned as well as other material evidence which has been filed by the appellant. 14. From perusal of the order, this Court noticed that the Food Analysis report clearly reveals that the mistake was noticed with respect of incomplete address on the packing material i.e. on the lable of packet, whereas, the analysis unit has not recorded any misbranding of the sample which was placed before it by the authority of Food and Safety Department. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, it is not a fit case where such a huge penalty can be imposed. In this case, admittedly misbranding of the item is not found and the manufacturer has not declared its complete address on the lable of sample, which is just a violation of Regulation 2.2.2 (6) FSS (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations 2011, the Tribunal, in fact, has misread the provision while holding that it is a case of misbranding. 16. However, seeing the peculiar fact of the case, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice that a token penalty of Rs. 25,000/-be imposed against the manufacturer alone. No penalty is imposable against the appellant Nos.1 and 3, who are the distributor (appellant No.1) and appellant No.3 (manufacturer). 17. The amount, if any, over and above of Rs. 25,000/- be refunded within one month from today. 18. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.