The court emphasized the importance of specific names in complaints, the mandatory procedures under the Act, and the classification of food products under relevant rules and standards.

G.B. Shah, J.

1. Present Criminal Misc. Applications under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') have been preferred by the applicants - original accused - Manufacturer/Distributor/Managing Director/company Secretary/Nominee etc. of Cadbury India Limited for quashing the Criminal Complaints being Nos. 5089 of 1995, 3791 of 1992, 1551 of 1992 and 1610 of 1992 filed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act'), pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Municipal), Vadodara (for short, 'the trial Court') and the orders of issuance of process.

2. As the issue involved in all these applications and the offence are same, these applications are heard together and being decided by this common judgment and order.

3. Brief common facts of the cases on hand are as under:

"3.1 The applicant herein is a public limited company. It is the case of the applicant that the respondent No. 2 herein - Food Inspector visited different stores situated at Vadodara and collected the samples of Cadbury Bournvita (company packs) of 500 gms./200 gms. respectively for analysis. The said samples were sent to the Public Analyst, Vadodara and the Public Analyst by reports in the respective cases, opined that the samples were not conforming to the standards of malted milk food with cocoa powder, laid down in item A. 18. 12 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, 'the Rules'). The papers were sent to the Local Health Authority and Dy. Municipal Commissioner, Corporation Area, Vadodara for grant of consent as to initiate prosecution, which came to be granted and accordingly, complaints came to be filed before the trial Court and process was ordered to be issued in each cases and hence, the applicants are before this Court for quashing the said complaints and the proceedings initiated thereupon."

4. Heard, Mr. Jaideep Verma, learned advocate with Mr. Pathak, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat.

4.1 Mr. Verma, learned advocate for the applicant, vehemently submitted that in the present case, there appears clear breach of provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. Section 13(2) of the Act, provides for forwarding the result of the analysis to the concerned and informing that if he so desires he can make an application to the Court within a period of 10 days from the date of the receipt of the report to get the food article kept by the Local Health Authority analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory while it is in fit condition for analyzing and if there is delay in filing the prosecution and in providing the copy of the report, it would not serve the purpose. He submitted that in the case on hand, no letter was issued to the applicant and as such, the right of the applicant to get the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory has been denied. Further, he submitted that the consent given by the authority concerned, is not a valid consent and is without jurisdiction for the reason that prosecution is consented qua the manufacturing company through its responsible persons viz. Manufacturer/Director etc. but no consent has been granted for prosecuting the company per se. He submitted that in the complaint also the company is impleaded as such and these persons are not being prosecuted in their individual capacity but as representatives of the company. He submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the consenting authority had granted the consent under Section 20 of the Act for prosecution of the responsible persons in their individual capacity. He further submitted that the consent given by the concerned authority is without application of mind as it reflects from the bare perusal of the consent that t