The main legal point established is that failure to comply with labeling requirements under Rule 32(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 can lead to the quashing of proceedings. Additionally, the judgment reaffirmed the applicability of the defense under Section 19(2)(a)(ii) and (b) of the Act.

S.S.Saron, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing the complaint dated March 12, 1998 (Annexure P-2) and resultant proceedings initiated under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) pending in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that a team headed by Dr. Buta Ram Gill, District Health Officer, Nawanshahr, inspected the shop of the petitioner on August 28, 1997. The Government Food Inspector, who is the complainant in this case, was part of the team and he disclosed his identity and purpose of visit. He found about 25 bags of Tata tea, each bag containing 96 packets. A demand for three sealed packets of Tata Tea was made by serving a notice in form VI upon the petitioner. The said form was duly attested by the complainant and the witnesses Hari Krishan and Dr. H.S. Gupta, Medical officer. Each packet was labelled separately and wrapped in strong khaki thick paper and secured by means of gum and strong twine. A paper slip duly signed by Local Health Authority, Nawanshahr bearing serial number was pasted on each sample packet and fastened. Each sample was sealed. The sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh in Form VII. The Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, under Section 13(5) of the Act gave his report to the following effect :-

"that the product has not been labelled in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32 of PFA Rules, 1955 as month of manufacture/packing has not been mentioned on the packet. The product is, therefore, misbranded".

3. On the basis of the above report, the complaint dated March 12, 1998 (Annexure P-2) has been filed.

4. The present petition has been filed inter alia on the ground that no offence is made out against the petitioner and that in any case, cognizance was not liable to be taken by the learned trial court. It is also submitted that Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to "the Rules") which is alleged to have been violated in the case has, in fact, been quashed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Nath and another v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi, 1972 FAC 1 : AIR 1971 S.C. 1844 holding that there was no obligation to specify on the label the date of packing and manufacture of the article of food or the period within which the article of food is to be utilised, used or consumed. The Judgment in Dwarka Naths case (supra) has been followed in the case of Ajit Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 1993(1) RCR(Crl.) 6 (P&H) : 1993 Criminal Law Times 160 and M/s Jagan Nath Dalip Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1993 Criminal Law Times 330. It is also contended that in terms of the Explanation III to Rule 32 of the Rules, for the purpose of declaration of month and year of manufacture, the provisions under rule 6(B) of Standard of Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, shall apply and, therefore, under the given circumstances, prosecution, if any, ought to have been launched under the said Act/Rules and not under the Act, as has been done in the present case. Besides, it is contended that in case, sample was taken in the form of packets and forwarded as such to the Public Analyst for analysis then taking of the sample in the form of packets is in clear violation of Rules 14 and 16 of the Rules as held by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Raman Kumar, 1997(4) RCR 772. It is contended that even cardboard box was not a packing better than a paper packing as it could easily and certainly admit moisture and can be tampered with. Besides, the alleged violation ought to have been detected by the Food Inspector and not by the Public Analyst. It is also contended that the petitioner is protected under Section 19(2)(a)(ii) and (b) of the Act and Rule 12-A of the Rules, a