The absence of importer information on a carbonated drink label does not amount to misbranding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, especially where a valid trade agreement between India and Bhutan exempts such products from certain labeling requirements.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. The instant revisional application is filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the proceedings being C.R. Case No. 374/2006 under Section 7 (ii)/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri and all orders passed therein by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri.

2. On the basis of a complaint lodged by the opposite party no.2 C.R. Case No. 374/2006 was registered before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri, therein alleging commission of offences by the petitioner and one Biplab Saha punishable under Sections 7 (ii)16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

3. The allegations made in the said complaint in brief are to the effect that-

a. On the 05.08.2006 at about 11 a.m., the Food Inspector went out for inspection at 1 No. Dabgram Colony, Siliguri and inspected the premises of M/S. Biplab Agency and seized three sealed bottles of sweetened carbonated water Pepsi having identical label declarations each of 600 ml for the purpose of analysis.

b. The Food Inspector packed, fastened and sealed each of the three bottles and pasted a paper slip bearing the Code No. and Serial No. of the Local (Health) Authority: D-SGL, 825 duly signed by the L (H) A, Siliguri.

c. One part of the said sample with a memorandum in Form VII was sent to the Public Analyst (F&W), W.B. Public Health Laboratory, Kolkata by registered parcel post on 07.08.2006.

d. The remaining two parts of counter sample phials were sent along with two copies of Memorandum VII in a sealed packet to the LHA, Siliguri along with a forwarding memo on 07.08.2006 for safe custody.

e. The vendor disclosed the name and address of the supplier from whom he purchased the said sweetened carbonated water (Pepsi). As such notice in Form VII was also issued to the supplier Pepsi Co India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Maxinus Enterprises India(P)., Inshad Warehouse, 2½ mile Checkpost, P.O. Sevoke Road, Dist, Jalpaiguri by regd. Post along with a forwarding letter on 07.08.2006.

f. The public analyst declared the sample as misbranded under his report number 177(4) dated 01.09.2006 stating that the label of the sample does not contain the name and complete address of importer in India as required under provision of Rule 32(c) (iii). Hence the sample is misbranded under Sub Clause(K) of Clause(IX) of Section 2 of the P.F.A. Act 1954.

g. On receipt of the analysis report by the L(H)A, Siliguri the said L(H)A informed the complainant the result of analysis and directed the complainant in writing to prepare all necessary connected papers for launching prosecution in the Ld. Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri vide his Memo No. 309, dated 18.10.2006.

h. The complainant with the consent from local (Health) Authority, Siliguri prepared complaints against:-

i. Sri Biplab Saha, S/o Sri Sunil Saha – Vendor & Prop. M/s Biplab Agency, 1 No. Dabgram Colony, P.O. Siliguri, Dist. Darjeeling.

ii. M/S Pepsi Co India Holdings(P) Ltd., C/O Maxinus Enterprise India (P) Ltd., Inshad Warehouse, 2½ Mile Checkpost, P.O. Sevoke Road, Dist. Jalpaiguri.

4. The Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri was inter alia pleased to take cognizance and issue summons to the petitioner vide order dated 1.11.2006.

5. The Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the entire complaint is misconceived and bereft of any cogent materials to justify the implication of the petitioner in connection with a criminal p