Back
2010 Supreme(Pat) 247
PATNA HIGH COURT
Sheema Ali Khan, J.
M.D., Anand Aqua, M/s S.B.Industries, 9-c, industrial Area, Patliputra, Patna-800013, through Rakesh Kumar Son Of Shri Ambika prasad, Presently Working As Manager, Anand aqua, M/s S.B.Industries, 9-c, Industrial Area
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14365 of 2009
Decided On : FEBRUARY 26, 2010
Substantial compliance with labeling requirements under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 can negate the accusation of misbranding.
Headnote:
Misbranding - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - The court found that the petitioner's bottled drinking water was not misbranded as it substantially complied with the labeling requirements under the Act and rules. The court relied on the principles established in the case of Jagdish Prasad Didwania and Another vs. The State of Bihar and Another.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of selling misbranded bottled drinking water under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 due to the alleged improper labeling of 'BEST BEFORE' date.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the labeling requirements under the Act and rules, and concluded that there was substantial compliance with the rule, thus the petitioner could not be held guilty of misbranding.
Issues: Alleged misbranding of bottled drinking water under Section 16(1) of the Act due to improper labeling of 'BEST BEFORE' date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the labeling requirements under the Act and rules, and the principle of substantial compliance.
Final Decision: The application of the petitioner was allowed, indicating that the petitioner was not guilty of misbranding the bottled drinking water.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner has been made accused in this case on the ground that he was selling Anand Aqua bottled drinking water which was allegedly misbranded, as such cognizance has been taken for the offences under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 16(1) of the Act is the penal section with respect to manufacture, sale, store or distribution of any article of food. It is alleged that the bottled drinking water was misbranded as it did not mention "BEST BEFORE" in capital letters rather it was printed in small letters.
3. Misbrand has been defined in Section 2(ix) of the Act, which reads as follows: (ix) "misbranded"-an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded (k) if it is not labeled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder. Therefore, it appears that the petitioners case falls within sub-section (k) of Section 2(ix) of the Act.
4. Rule 32 of the Act envisages that month and year in capital letters upto which the product is based for consumption should be provided in the following manner. The manner indicates "BEST BEFORE .................MONTH AND YEAR".
5. From the perusal of Rule 32 of the said Rules, it appears that the manufacturer ought to give these aspects such as date of packaging or manufacture in capital letters. It is not a case where the information has not been given to the consumers with respect to the period when the produce would be best utilized, rather the information has been given by printing it in small letters. I find that there is substantial compliance of the rule and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner can be held guilty of misbranding his product.
6. For the aforesaid proposition, I rely on the principles of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Didwania and Another vs. The State of Bihar and Another, reported in 2005(1) PLJR 188.
7. In the result, this application is allowed.
