The judgment establishes the importance of compliance with labeling requirements under Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the jurisdiction of the Public Analyst, and the nomination of individuals responsible for the conduct of business under Section 17 of the Act.

R.S.Madan, J.

1. By this judgment, I would be disposing of seventeen petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing Criminal Misc. Nos. 35550/M, 35552/M of 1999, 10073/M, 10075/M, 10077/M, 10823/M, 17384/M, 23130/M, 23132/M, 23134/M, 23136/M, 23138/M, 23140/M, 23142/M, 23144/M, 23146/M and 23147/M of 2000 which involve the common questions of law and fact. The facts are being taken from Criminal Misc. No. 35550/M of 1999. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s Tata Chemicals Limited and is the manufacturer of famous Tata Salt.

2. The averments made in the complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, "the Act") are that on 4.8.1998 at 11.00 a.m. the complainant/Food Inspector took a sample of iodised salt by taking into possession 10 packets of Tata iodised Salt from the shop of Sanjeev Kumar (proforma respondent), situated at Sangat Mandi (District Bathinda), and the prescribed sample was taken out of each packet, labelled, wrapped in a thick paper, thereafter forwarded to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Jalandhar, after complying with the prescribed procedure.

3. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample was declared iodised having iodine content above 15 PPM, Diwali Brand, vaccum evaporated, non- caking and containing permitted anti caking agent. Neither any adulteration, nor any element or ingredient injurious to health, were found in the said sample. However, the Public Analyst opined that the contents of the sample were misbranded as far rule 32 (b) of the Act as names of ingredients used in the product had not been mentioned on the label of the sample product. The relevant part of the report (Annexure P1), is reproduced as under :-

"A sample of Tata Iodized salt Sr. No. & Code No. 77950/BRG/ 117/98 of Local Health Authority said to have been taken from on 4.8.98 for analysis, properly sealed and fastened, and that I found intact and unbroken. The seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample applied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent the Food Inspector and the sample was in a condition fit for analysis. I further certify that I have caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample, and declare the result of my analysis to be as follows :-

Descriptions Tata Salt Packed in a polythene pack bearing the words iodized, iodine contents above 15 PPM, Diwali Brand, Vacuum evaporated non caking contains permitted anti caking agent. Uniform all inclusive price through out India. A Tata product Manufactured by TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED. The company that cares, Bombay House Mumbai- 400001. Repacked by Vardhman Chemicals Limited, 4B Parekh Mehal Church Gate Mumbai in a cool dry placed. Pkd. 7/97 Batch No. 003. Physical Appearance No insect detected. No mould growth. Free from visible contaminants and other Extraneous Adultrants. Moisture -------------- 2.60 percent by weight.

Sodium Chloride (Nacl) -------- 98.76 percent by weight on dry bases. Matter insoluble in water ----- 0.31 percent by weight on dry bases. Matter insoluble in water other than sodium chlorides 0.93 percent by weight on dry bases. Iodine ------ 143 parts per million on dry weight bases. and am of the opinion that the contents of the sample are misbranded far rule 32 (b) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as names of ingredients used in the product has not been mentioned on the label of the sample."

4. On the basis of report (Annexure P1) received from the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector without application of mind and without considering the facts had gone beyond his jurisdiction and filed the present complaint (Annexure P2). It is pertinent to mention here that in the instant case the Managing Director of Tata Chemicals Limited was impleaded as a party to the case being manufacturer. The correspondence, Annexures P3 to P7, exchanged between the Tata Chemicals Limited and the Food Inspector vide which the Tata Chemicals Limited shows that the Food Inspector had be