M. S. A. Siddiqui, J.

( 1 ) BY this petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. , the petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings emanating from the complaint filed by the food Inspector under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "the Act" ).

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are that on 30. 10. 1988, Shri S. P. Gupta, Food Inspector purchased the sample laddoos from the petitioner for analysis. At that time, the laddoos were stored in an open tray, for sale. The public analyst, to whom one of the three samples, which were prepared in conformity with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, was sent, declared the sample as conforming to the prescribed standard but added that the permitted coaltar colour (tatrazine) was present therein. The presence of colour without a label declaration amounts to misbranding under Section 2 (ix) (j) of the Act and so the petitioner was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 7/16 of the Act for contravening the provisions of Rules 24 and 32 of the Rules framed under the Act. On the complaint being filed, the learned Magistrate framed a charge under sections 7/16 (1) of the Act against the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that admittedly the sample was lifted from the open tray and so there was no legal obligation to make formal declaration as required by Rule 32 of the Rules framed under the Act. According to the learned counsel, normally the sweets from the open tray are purchased on the basis of the name of the sweets displayed and the consumer rarely makes any inquiry about ingredients. Therefore. considering the normal market practice that inquiry about ingredients not being resorted to, there is apparently no ground to mislead the consumer and so the petitioner cannot be charged for violating the provisions of section 2 (ix) (j) of the Act and Rules 24 and 32 of the Rules framed thereunder. Thus the question is whether the tray used for displaying the laddoos for sale falls within the definition of "package" as defined in Section (x) of the Act. Section 2 (x) is as under "package means a box, bottle, casket, tin, barrel, case, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article of food is placed or packed. "

( 4 ) IN Municipal Corporation of Delhi V. sunder Dass, (1980) 1 Delhi 1980, this Court had occasion to consider the question whether an open container like a Bhagona falls within the definition of the word "package" and it was held that the definition of the word "package" is wide enough to take within its sweep an open container like a Bhagona. The following observation in the said judgment in contextually quotable: the word "package" as defined in Section 2 (x) means a box, bottle, casket, tin, barrel case, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article of food is placed or packed. This definition is wide enough to take within its sweep an open container like a Bhagona, in our view, it is futile to argue that Rules contained in Part VII are applicable to such food stuff as is contained in closed packets. The absence of word "closed" or "sealed is by itself enough to repel such interpretation. "

( 5 ) TAKING cue from the said decision it must be held that the definition of package under Section 2 (x) of the Act is of wide amplitude and it embraces within its fold an open container like a tray. Admittedly, the tray from which the sample laddoos were taken had no label as required by Rule 32 of the Rules framed under the Act. Rule 32 is as under:-

"rule 32. Package of food to carry a label. " Every package of food shall carry a label and unless otherwise provided in these rules, there should be specified on every label:-

(A) the name, trade name or description of food contained in the package;

(B) the names of ingredients used in the product in d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document