Back
2013 Supreme(Raj) 1201
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.
Anshul Jain and others - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellanous Petition No. 106 of 2011.
Decided On : 6-05-2013
For the Petitioner:V.R. Bajwa, Advocate.
For the State: Laxman Meena, PP.
Misbranding of food articles under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is a substantial offence and cannot be overlooked as trivial. The public analyst has the authority to determine and report on misbranding, even in the absence of an express provision granting such authority. Partners of a firm can be held responsible for misbranding offences even if a person has not been duly nominated under Section 17 of the Act.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 - SECTION 7, 10(4), 14A, 16, 17 - PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION RULES, 1955 - RULE 12-B, 32(I) - MISBRANDING - OFFENCE - COGNIZANCE - QUASHING OF - GROUNDS - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 95 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE - POWERS OF PUBLIC ANALYST - NOMINATION OF PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDUCT OF BUSINESS - MISJOINDER OF PARTIES - ANALYSIS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, partners of a firm that manufactured and distributed fruit drinks, challenged the cognizance taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act). The basis of the complaint was that the label of the sample did not contain the period of consumption in capital letters as required by Rule 32(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (the Rules), rendering it misbranded.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the non-mentioning of the month and year of consumption in capital letters on the label did not amount to a mere technicality or negligible violation but was a substantial misbranding as per the Act and Rules. The court further held that the offence was not trivial in nature and could not be overlooked, as misbranding carried the same sentence as adulteration. The court also clarified that the public analyst was empowered to determine and report on misbranding, even though the Act and Rules did not explicitly confer such authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the non-mentioning of the consumption period in capital letters constituted misbranding under the Act and Rules? 2. Whether the offence was trivial and could be overlooked under Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code? 3. Whether the public analyst had the authority to determine and report on misbranding? 4. Whether the petitioners, as partners of the firm, could be held responsible for the offence in the absence of a duly nominated person under Section 17 of the Act? 5. Whether the complaint suffered from misjoinder of parties by including the vendor of the food articles?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules and concluded that misbranding included any non-compliance with the labeling requirements, including the specification of the consumption period in capital letters. The court held that this requirement was not a mere formality but served a specific purpose of safeguarding consumer interests. 2. The court held that the offence of misbranding was not trivial in nature, as it carried the same sentence as adulteration and was punishable under a special law. The court clarified that Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with trivial offences, was not applicable in this case. 3. The court interpreted the provisions of the Act and Rules and held that the public analyst was empowered to determine and report on misbranding, even though there was no express provision granting such authority. The court reasoned that the public analyst's role in analyzing food samples included assessing compliance with all labeling requirements, including those related to misbranding. 4. The court held that the petitioners, as partners of the firm, could be held responsible for the offence in the absence of a duly nominated person under Section 17 of the Act. The court noted that Section 17 provided for the nomination of a responsible person for the conduct of the firm's business, but it did not absolve the partners from their own responsibility. The court clarified that the issue of whether the petitioners were in charge of and responsible for the firm's business at the time of the offence was a question of fact to be determined during the trial. 5. The court held that the complaint did not suffer from misjoinder of parties by including the vendor of the food articles. The court reasoned that Section 7 of the Act prohibited the sale of misbranded food, and therefore, the vendor could be held liable along with the manufacturer and distributor.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the grounds raised by the petitioners were not legally tenable at the initial stage of the proceedings. The court also dismissed the stay application.
(1) The complaint has been filed on the premise that the label of the sample did not contain the period in which the food Articles was fit for consumption from the date of manufacture in capital letters as required by clause (i) of Rule 32 of the Rules and the same was written in small letters and on that basis the sample was found to be misbranded within the meaning of sub-clause (k) of clause (ix) of Section 2 of the Act. According to learned counsel the deficiency found on the label of the package of the food Articles is hyper technical and negligible and violation of mere formality prescribed under the provisions of the Act and Rules. It is required to be ignored more particularly looking to the fact that sample was not found to be adulterated.
(2) The offence is of trivial nature within the meaning of Section 95 of Indian Penal Code which provides that nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complaint of such harm. Looking to the fact that the sample was not found to be adulterated, in the light of this statutory mandate, the technical lapse, which could hardly cause any harm to the consumer of the food Articles, deserves to be overlooked. It is not even the cause of the prosecution that any consumer of the food Articles was misled in any manner.
(3) From the provisions of the Act and Rules it is clear that public analyst is entitled only to analyse the sample of food sent to him by the Food Inspector and to find whether it is adulterated or not and he is not entitled to determine the manner in which the Articles of food has been packaged a
