Iodized salt, being a flavouring agent, is not subject to the prohibition on labeling under Rule 43(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

V.M.Jain, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint, under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and all subsequent proceedings, taken thereon.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 15.12.1998, the Food Inspector along with the District Health Officer, had inspected the premises of Ahand Salt Company, Jalandhar, where accused-petitioner, Baldev Singh, was found present and he disclosed that he was the Proprietor of M/s Anand Salt Company, Jalandhar. At that time, accused, Baldev Raj, petitioner, was having about 3200 packets/pouches of iodized Anand Super Salt of 1 kg each; meant for sale to the public, for human consumption. At that time, one Tilak Raj was joined as witness. The Food Inspector, after serving due notice upon accused, Baldev Raj, purchased three polythene packets/pouches of iodized Anand Super Salt of 1 kg each, on payment against receipt. The three packets were separately sealed, as per Rules and spot-memo was prepared. One sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, along with a memo on Form VII, through special messenger, while the remaining two samples were deposited with the local Health Authority, Jalandhar. As per the report of the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, he had opined that the product had been declared on label as "Shudh Edible Salt", in Hindi, whereas under Rule 43 of the Rules, label of salt containing potassium iodate should not contain any words, which might imply the product as "pure". As such, the product was misbranded. It was alleged that in this manner, the accused had contravened the provisions of the Act and the Rules, framed thereunder. Accordingly, the Food Inspector, filed criminal complaint against Baldev Raj, petitioner, as accused No. 1, M/s Anand Salt Company, Delhi, as accused No. 2 and M/s Trimurti Salt Manufacturing Company as accused No. 3. On filing of the complaint, the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioner as accused in the aforesaid complaint. Baldev Raj, petitioner, has filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings, taken thereon, inter-alia alleging therein that Rule 43 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, did not apply in the case of sweets, confectionery, biscuits, bakery products, processed fruits, areated waters, vegetables and flavouring agents, as per Rule 43(5) of the aforesaid Rules. It was alleged that the salt was a flavouring agent.

3. In the written reply, filed by the Food Inspector, it was alleged that under Rule 43(1) of the Rules, no label, for article of food, could contain any words, which might imply that the food was "pure". It was further alleged that the iodized salt did not come within the category of flavouring agents. It was alleged that on the label of the packets of iodized salt, it was mentioned "Sudh Khadya Namak" in Hindi and as such, the label contravened the provisions of Rule 43 of the aforesaid Rules.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

5. Rule 43(1) and (5) of the aforesaid Rules reads as under :-

(1) Every advertisement and every price or trade list or label for an article of food which contains an addition, admixture or deficiency shall describe the food as containing such addition, admixture or deficiency and shall also specify the nature and quantity of such addition, admixture or deficiency. No such advertisement or price or trade list or label attached to the container of the food shall contain any words which might imply that the food is pure;

(Provided that for the purpose of this rule the following shall not be deemed as an admixture or an addition, namely - (a) salt in butter or margarine;

(b) vitamins in food)

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

(5) Nothing contained in the rule shal