SHORT NOTE
DELHI HIGH COURT
S. Muralidhar, J.
Food Inspector —Petitioner
versus
Sanjay Kumar Arya and Ors. —Respondents
Crl.L.P. 285 of 2014
Decided on 8.9.2014

IMPORTANT POINT
The Public Analyst found sample to be a tobacco product, the provisions of PFA Act would not be applicable.

Headnote:Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — Section 2 (ix) (k), 2 (ia) (h), 16(1A) read with 7 —PFA Rules, 1955 — Rule 32 (i) & 44 J — Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act 2003 — Section 3(p) — Misbranded — Tobacco product — HELD — Provisions of PFA Act would not be applicable — Mere addition of word ‘within’ in declaration concerning best before’ could not be violation of Section 32(i) of PFA Rules.

       Held: The learned trial Court, on an analysis of evidence, held that in as much, as the PA found the sample to be a tobacco product covered by the definition under Section 3(p) of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act 2003, the provisions of PFA Act would not be applicable. Reference was made to the decision of this Court in Ram Babu Rastogi v. State in Cri. M.C. No. 1360 of 2011. On the aspect of misbranding, the learned trial Court found that the mere addition of the word ‘within’ in the declaration concerning best before’ could not be viewed as a violation of Section 32(i) of the PFA Rules.

       Result: Petition dismissed