Importent Point:
Only those expressions on the label that are an exaggeration of the quality of the product are prohibited under rule 37D, PFA Rules.

JUDGMENT:

P.P. NAOLEKAR,J. -- Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby the High Court has held that from the evidence on record the article of food in question, is soyabean oil. The label contains pictures of vegetables like cabbage, carrot, brinjal, capsicum, cauliflower, tomato and onions which are in no way connected with soyabean oil. Although the prosecution of the appellant is quashed, a clear case of misbranding is made out.

3. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant M/s Parakh Foods Ltd. (now Cargill Foods India Limited) is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant is engaged in manufacture and sale of "Shaktimaan Refined Soyabean Oil", a food product covered under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and it sells and markets the said product throughout the country.

4. On 23.12.2003, respondent No.2, the Food Inspector, District Mahboob Nagar, Andhra Pradesh visited the shop of M/s Md. Dilawar General & Oil Shop No.2-10-4, Old Gunj, Mahboob Nagar, being accused No.1 vendor in the complaint. Respondent No.2 found a carton containing 20 packets of "Shaktimaan Refined Soyabean Oil" kept for sale for human consumption. Respondent No.2 suspected the quality of oil to be adulterated and purchased three packets each containing 1litre oil and obtained cash receipt from the vendor. Thereafter, the packets were sent to the Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad. The Public Analyst furnished his report on 31.01.2004 and opined that the label contains pictures of vegetables like cabbage, carrot, brinjal, capsicum, cauliflower, tomato and onions, which are in no way connected with soyabean oil and said that the pictures of vegetables on the label is an exaggeration of the quality of the product and hence violates Rule 37 D of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "PFA Rules") and, therefore, is misbranded.

5. Accordingly, the Food Inspector filed a complaint under the provisions of the Act before the Magistrate. A case was registered under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act for alleged contravention of Section 2(ix)(k) and under Section 7(ii) of the Act read with Rule 37 D of the PFA Rules.

6. The prosecution initiated against the appellant was challenged by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court decided the criminal proceedings on 20.07.2007. The High Court came to the conclusion that the vendor did not produce any warranty, thus the manufacturer or the dealer cannot be prosecuted. When there is no allegation in the complaint alleging that the vendor produced any warranty or bill with regard to the purchase of the food item in question from accused No.2, that is the appellant herein, merely basing on the label declaration the appellant cannot be prosecuted. However, the order of quashing will not preclude the concerned Magistrate in arraying the appellant as an accused during the trial, if there is any offence.

7. The High Court has also observed that it is clear that the article of food in question was misbranded since none of the pictures contained on the label has nothing to do with the article of food in question. Therefore, it is held to be a clear case of violation of Rule 37 D of the PFA Rules. Aggrieved by these findings, the present appeal is filed.

8. It is contended by Shri Ashok H. Desai, learned senior counsel for the appellant that the article of food can be considered to be misbranded only when false claims are made with respect to such article of food upon the label or otherwise and there is no statutory prohibition under the Act in printing pictures of v