Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1724 (RAJ)

Neeraj Bhandari v. State of Rajasthan

2021-09-15

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2021
ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the lab report issued by the Public Health Laboratory, Jodhpur, which is Annexure-3 of the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that only allegation upon the petitioner is that while the samples of condiments falling under the Regulation No. 2.9.18.2 of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additive) Regulations, 2011 were being analyzed, alongwith the necessary documents, it was found that the address mentioned in such documents i.e. RR Foods NH 65, Village Chamrani, District Nagaur, Rajasthan, India - Pin code 341001 FSSAI License No. 12215035000187, was not a complete address. 3. This Court, being concerned about the misbranding of the Condiments, directed the concerned officer to remain present before this Court. 4. In pursuance of the order dated 04.08.2021, the concerned officer of CM&HO is present before this Court alongwith learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that as per the report, the only thing wrong with the condiments was that it was not carrying the proper address. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Nirma Limited Vs. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No. 2042/2009) decided on 19.03.2015, relevant portion reads as under:- "6. Before dealing with proviso(c) referred to hereinabove, it is necessary to keep in mind, that the consequences of non-compliance of proviso(c) are penal. In the above view of the matter, it is imperative to construe the provisions strictly. Proviso (c) requires the depiction of the "name and complete address" of the manufacturer, and the manufacturing unit. The extract of the address on the packages which were sought to be confiscated, reveals, that the name of the village and the district where the product was being manufactured, was clearly mentioned. In so far as registered office of the manufacturer is concerned, the road on which the same is located, as well as, the city in which it is located, were mentioned. Along with above depiction, in both cases (address of manufacturer and manufacturing unit), even the pin codes are mentioned (with reference to the manufacturer's address-380009; and with reference to the manufacturing unit's address-364313). 7. Along with above depiction, in both cases (address of manufacturer and manufacturing unit), even the pin codes are mentioned (with reference to the manufacturer's address-380009; and with reference to the manufacturing unit's address-364313). 7. The question that arises for our consideration is, whether the depiction of the addresses would satisfy the requirement "complete address" contained in proviso(c), referred to and relied upon to initiate action against the Appellant. In our considered view, the requirement of complete address would be satisfied if the implementing authority, or a consumer, or for that matter any other interested person, is in a position to locate the place of manufacture, as well as, the registered office of the manufacturer, on the basis of the address displayed on the label of the packaging. In other words, the address would be deemed to be complete, if there would be no ambiguity in locating the place of manufacture, or the registered office of the manufacturer. It would be complete if the address depicted is not referable to more than one locations. Finding fault, for not mentioning the name of the State, in the instant case, would be permissible if the address indicated is referable to more than one States." 6. Though learned Public Prosecutor and the concerned officer of CM&HO present in person did not support the case of the petitioner, but they admitted that only thing wrong with the sample is that the address of the petitioner was improper/incomplete and learned Public Prosecutor fairly submits that the case law in hand is applicable. 7. This Court taking note of the fact that the only thing wrong with the sample is address and Hon'ble Apex Court has already laid down the law after dealing with the issue of address at length, finds that the name of Village and District, where the products was being manufactured, was clearly mentioned and the address was sufficient to locate the place, then it would be deemed to be completed. 8. Following the precedent law of Nirma Limited (supra), the present petition is allowed and impugned Proceedings No. 05/2020, initiated before the learned Additional District Magistrate (II), Jodhpur under Food Safety and Standards, 2006 are quashed and set aside.