Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Rajesh Batra, Ms. Sonia Kukreja and Mr. S.S. Kang, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, petitioners pray for setting aside impugned order dated 13.12.2007 (Annexure P1), passed by the Court of ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, whereby process against the petitioners have been issued in criminal complaint No.263 of 2007 tilted 'State Vs. Shri Vipan Singh and others', (Annexure P2), under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [for short 'the PFA Act, 1954' ] read with Rules 32 and 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 [for short 'the PFA Rules, 1955'] and further pray to quash the complaint in question.

2.1 As it emerges on perusal of the paper-book, Government Food Inspector (GFI), Jalandhar inspected the premises of M/s Doon Bakers, Jalandhar on 09.08.2007 and found in its possession 20 bottles of Gatorade (orange flavour sports drink) of 500 ml each. He purchased 3 bottles for the purpose of sampling on payment of ?90/- against the receipt, after serving notice on Form VI (Annexure P3) to Vipan Singh, the representative of M/s Doon Bakers. The GFI also noted the description mentioned on the label of the bottle and reproduced the same on Form VI. One of the sample bottles in sealed parcel was sent to Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh along with a copy of Form VII in a sealed pack; whereas two other bottles in sealed pack were deposited with Local Heath Authority, Jalandhar. The report of Public Analyst (Annexure P4) was received, as per which the sample was found to be misbranded, since it was not in conformity with the provisions of Rule 32 of the PFA Rules, 1955, as month and year of manufacture; and batch/ code/ lot no. had not been mentioned on the label.

2.2 Complaint was then filed before the ld. Area magistrate to prosecute the retailer M/s Doon Bakers, the manufacturer M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Marketer M/s Tropicana Beverages along with their respective representatives.

2.3 Ld. ACJM vide order dated 13.12.2007 (Annexure P1) found prima facie case for commission of the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the PFA Act, 1954 and Rules 32 & 50 of the PFA Rules, 1955 and directed issuance of the process against all the accused accordingly.

3.1 Assailing the summoning order and also seeking the quashing of the complaint, it is contended by the petitioners that opinion of the Public Analyst is based on incomplete examination of the sample resulting in the incorrect finding. Drawing attention towards Explanation to Rule 32 of the PFA Rules, 1955, it is contended by Ld. Senior counsel for the petitioners that the term 'label' means a display of written, marked, graphic, printed, perforated, stenciled, embossed or stamped matter upon the container, cover, lid or crown of any food package. Ld. counsel contends that though the Public Analyst rightly observed that main label did not contain the batch number and date of packing but he omitted to observe the cap of the bottle, where it is recorded.

3.2 It is contended that labels are printed in bulk for a large number of bottles and are used on different dates and for different batches and so, it is not feasible to print the date of manufacture and batch number on the preprinted label. The common declarations to all bottles of sampled products i.e. Gatorade, such as ingredients, quantity of added sugar etc., manufactured by, marketed by are given upon the label of Gatorade in the printed label, which is wrapped around the product; whereas batch number, date of packing and MRP are not printed on the label of the bottle and rather, it is stated that 'For Batch Number, Date Of Manufacture and Maximum Retail Price (inclusive of all taxes) see cap/neck'. Ld. Senior counsel contends that bottle specific details like batch number, date of manufacture and MRP being variable are printed by the inkjet printing on the neck or the cap of the product.

3.3 Ld. counsel further contends that the opi