The main legal point established is the interpretation and application of misbranding under Section 2(ix)(k) and Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954, and the significance of batch number/code number/lot number in tracing products in the distribution process.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since the facts and issues are same in the present petitions and are filed against the common impugned order dated 06.06.2016, therefore, both petitions are being disposed of vide this common judgment.

2. These petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint case bearing No.4/2012 and order dated 06.06.2016 passed by Ld. ACMM, New Delhi, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi whereby learned Judge was pleased to frame notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners.

3. Case of petitioners is that they were erstwhile Directors of the company namely V & V Beverages, importer of “Snapple Juice Drink”, (hereinafter referred to as the alleged food article), which it imported from the United States, among other vendors and supplied to M/s A&M Enterprises, a distributor company, which in turn distributed the same to M/s Barista Coffee Company Limited, the end vendor. All the abovementioned are co-accused in the complaint.

4. Facts as alleged in the complaint are that on 03.05.2011, food officials including Food Inspector and Field Assistant under the alleged supervision of the Local Health Authority (LHA)/SDM reached at premises of M/s Barista Coffee Company Ltd., Connaught Place, New Delhi and lifted sample of 6 bottles of alleged misbranded product which were stored for sale in sealed glass bottles of 473 ml each. One counterpart of the sample was deposited with the Public Analyst (PA) and the remaining two counterparts were deposited with SDM/LHA. Vide report dated 30.05.2011, the PA reported that alleged article was conforming to standards, yet the sample was found misbranded being in violation of Rule 32 (e) of the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Rules 1955, as amended, because there was ostensibly no batch number/ code number mentioned on the label.

5. Rule 32(e) reads as, "Lot/Code/Batch Identification - Batch number Or Code number or Lot number which is a mark of identification by which the food can be traced in the manufacture and identified in the distribution, shall be given on the label". However, after obtaining due sanction of the Director, PFA, the complaint came to be filed against 9 accused, including petitioners for alleged violation of Section 2 (ix)(k) read with Rule32 (e) of the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Rules 1955, as amended, punishable under Section 5/7 /16(1)(a) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954. Section 2(ix)(k) defines a food article to be "misbranded" if it is not labeled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or Rules.

6. Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the sample of "snapple" juice drink is not misbranded under Section 32(e), since the barcode/ Julian code mentioned on the packaging of the sample sufficiently complies with requirement of batch/code/lot number i.e. a combination which can be used to find the batch of product the sample is a part of.

7. She further submitted that the complaint was filed by a public servant and petitioners were summoned vide order dated 05.05.2012.Other accused i.e. 1 to 6 were given benefit of warranty under section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and were ordered to be discharged. Subsequently, court ordered notice to be framed against the petitioners, V & V Beverages & Deepak Kumarie. However, Ld. Trial Court has failed to observe that allegation made against petitioners herein is without specifically prescribing any role against them. Thus, there is insufficient material available against which the cognizance should have been taken against petitioners. Only allegation against petitioners is ''as such both the above said directors are in-charge of and responsible for day to day conduct of its business". The above said allegation in the complaint made by respondent no.2 does not constitute a sufficient cause of action to prosecute and move further with the complaint.

8. Learned senior counsel submitted tha