The judgment establishes the principle that complaints under specific provisions of the PFA Act must contain specific averments and adhere to valid rules under the Act.

The petitioners have come forward with this application to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.71 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the 5th accused is a manufacturer, 4th accused is the distributor, A2 and A3 are the partners of A4 and A1 is the seller. The respondent herein has purchased Corn Flour on 29.10.2003 and he sent the same for food analysis and after following the procedures, they received a report on 27.11.2003, in which, it is stated that the sample is misbranded, since the Batch No./Lot No./Code No. and the Best before declaration required by Rule 32 of the PFA Rules, 1955 are not present on the label of the sample and he preferred a complaint on 07.07.2006 for the offence under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) read with 7(ii) and 2(ix) (k) of PFA Act 1954 and Rule 32(e) and (i) of PFA Rules, 1955.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the complaint has been filed for the offence under Sections 16(1)(a) (i) read with 7(ii) and 2(ix) (k) of PFA Act 1954 and Rule 32(e) and (i) of PFA Rules, 1955. In the decision reported in AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1844 – Dwarka Nath V. Delhi Municipality, the Apex Court has struck down the provision of Rule 32(e) of PFA Rules, 1955 and therefore, the offence under Rule 32(e) of PFA Rules, 1955 would go.

4. The learned counsel would further submit that in respect of the offence under Rule 32(i) of PFA Rules, 1955 is concerned, there is no specific provision for misbranding of food item in the complaint without specific averment that customers are being misled on account of misbranding and also the details of manner of misbranding are unsustainable. To substantiate the same, he relied on the decisions of this Court reported in 2010(3) MWN (Cr.57) – M.N.Katharmytheen V. State and (2011) 1 MLJ (Crl) 756 – A.Eswaramoorthy V. Food Inspector and prayed for quashing the same.

5. Resisting the same, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that in the complaint, it is specifically stated that the food sample was misbranded and there is no reason for quashing the proceedings and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the application.

6. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. The respondent herein has taken samples and sent the same for analysis on 29.10.2003 and report has been received on 27.11.2003. The complaint has been filed on 07.07.2006 for the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) read with 7(ii) and 2(ix) (k) of PFA Act 1954 and Rule 32(e) and (i) of PFA Rules, 1955. It is appropriate to incorporate the provisions of law:

Sections 16(1)(a)(i) of PFA Act 1954

16. Penalties. -(1)Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1A), if any person-

(a) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, imports into India or manufactures for sales, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food-

(i) which is adulterated within the meaning of sub-clause (m) of clause (ia) of section 2 or misbranded within the meaning of clause (ix) of that section or the sale of which is prohibited under any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder or by an order of the Food(Health) Authority;

Section 7(ii) of PFA Act 1954

7. Prohibitions of manufacture, sale, etc., of certain articles of food.-

(ii) any misbranded food

Section 2(ix) (k) of PFA Act 1954

2. Definitions.-In this Act unless the context otherwise requires.-

(ix) “misbranded” -an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded -

(k) if it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder;

Rule 32(e) and (i) of PFA Rules, 1955

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

(e) a distinctive batch number or lot number or code number, either in numericals or alphabets or in