The main legal point established in the judgment is that for raising the allegation of misbranding, it is incumbent on the part of the Food Inspector to mention specific and definite allegations to fulfil the requirements contemplated for constituting the allegations of 'misbranding'. The court also emphasized the need for specific and definite allegations in the complaint to support the initiation of proceedings.

1. The petitioners, who have been arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 6, are facing trial for the alleged offences under Sections 7(ii) & 16(1)(a)(i) read with 2(ix) (g) and (k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act , 1954 and Rule 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, in the case pending in STC No. 2053 of 2009 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirunelveli, and they have come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the complaint pending in S.T.C. No. 2053 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Tiruenlveli.

2. The case of the prosecution is to the effect that the 1st accused is the proprietor of a medical shop by name “Bye-Pass Medicals”, Tirunelveli. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 are the Directors of the 6th Accused Company, namely M/s.Quick Silver Health Care (P) Limited. The 6th accused Company, is the Re-packers of the food article, namely Glucose-D, manufactured by M/s.Maize Products, Kathwada, Ahmedabad. It is alleged that the Food Inspector, Tirunelveli Corporation, on his routine inspection, inspected the 1st accused’s Medical Shop, namely ‘Bye-Pass Medicals’, on 26.6.2008 at 1.30 p.m. and found that the 1st accused was selling Glucose-D Powder. It is stated in the complaint that the shop owner, namely the 1st accused, was possessing valid licence. Thereafter, the Food Inspector informed Accused No. 1 that he is taking sample of Glucose-D Packets for sending the same to Public Analyst, Food Analysis Laboratory, for analysis. Accordingly, the Food Inspector has taken 100 gm. sample each from 10 packets. On enquiry, accused No. 1 stated that he purchased the said Glucose-D from the 6th Accused Company, for which accused Nos. 2 to 5 are the Directors. It is the further case of the prosecution, as per the complaint, that on sending the samples for analysis, the Public Analyst sent a Report, after examination of samples, opining that the said sample is misbranded, as it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of Rule 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

3. After receipt of the Report of the Public Analyst, dated 30.7.2008, the Food Inspector, Tirunelveli Corporation, has filed a Complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirunelveli, alleging offences under Sections 16(1),(a)(i) read with Section 7(ii) , 2(ix)(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rue 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The said complaint was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirunelveli. Being aggrieved against the said complaint, on the ground that no offence as alleged in the complaint is made out, the petitioners have preferred the present petition seeking to quash the complaint.

4. Mr.R.Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioners, would put-forth the following contentions:

(i) The allegations contained in the Complaint do not make out the alleged offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act , as claimed by the Food Inspector, in his complaint.

(ii) The main allegation contained in the complaint is only reproduction of the opinion of the Public Analyst in his Report to the effect that the sample is misbranded, as it is not labelled as per the requirements of Rule 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and the complaint does not state as to how and in what manner the sample taken is misbranded and as such, the complaint is liable to be quashed.

(iii) Even a perusal of the Public Analyst Report does not disclose any specific violation, except giving a vague information to the effect that the sample was found to be misbranded and it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of Rule 32(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

(iv) In the complaint, it is not stated that the label was not properly affixed or the Food Inspector suspected misbranding.

(v) Admittedly, Glucose-D packets contain the declaration, declaring that “99.4% Pure Glucose”