Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK GUPTA
Aradhana Drinks And Beverages Private Utd. – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Of Chandigarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Gupta, J.
This order shall dispose of two petitions titled above, both filed under Section 482 CrPC, wherein petitioners pray for quashing separate complaints and the summoning orders passed by the Courts concerned so as to prosecute the petitioners under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [for short 'the PFA Act, 1954 '] read with Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 [for short 'the PF A Rules, 1955'}.2.1 In CRM-M-11797-2010, the Government Food Inspector appointed by the Chandigarh Administration, inspected the premises of petitioner M/s Aradhana Drinks & Beverages Private Ltd., Plot No. 181, Phase I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh on 26.05.2004 and found in its possession 500 sealed bottles of 300 ML each of "Mirinda Sweetened Carbonated Water' for public sale. He purchased three bottles for the purpose of sampling on the payment of Rs. 66/- against a receipt, after serving notice on Form VI to Deepak Mittal, the representative of M/s Aradhana Drinks & Beverages Private Ltd.. One of the sample bottles in sealed parcel was sent to Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh alongwith a copy of Fonn VII in a se
The absence of importer information on a carbonated drink label does not amount to misbranding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, especially where a valid trade agreement between In....
Misbranding – Punishment under PFA and penalty under FSSA cannot be imposed on violator for same misbranding because it will amount to double jeopardy which is prohibited under Article 20(2) of Const....
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act does not apply to food products exclusively manufactured for export, and the initiation of prosecution in such cases is invalid.
Any descriptions on the pre-packaged commodity would come under the definition of ‘label’, and the said expression is not included in Rule 31(2).
Compliance with food safety regulations is mandatory; identical labeling of product dates misleads consumers and violates statutory requirements.
The court ruled that reports from non-specified laboratories under the PFA Act render prosecutions unsustainable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
