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. Rajeev Anand, AAP for UT, Chandigarh

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 sealed pack, whereas, two other bottles in a sealed pack were deposited with the Local Health Authority, UT Chandigarh. The report of the Public Analyst (Annexure P3) was received, as per which month and year of its manufacture and complete address, as required under Clause (c) and (f) of Rule 32 of the PFA Rules, 1955 was not given, and so sample was misbranded.

2.2 In CRM-M-11798-2010, in the inspection carried out on 26.05.2004, 500 sealed bottles of 300 ML each of "Pepsi Sweetened Carbonated water ' for public sale were found. Three sample bottles were drawn. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst and two were deposited with the Local Health Authority. Similar report, as in the previous case, was received from the Public Analyst to the effect that month and year of manufacture of the sampled product and complete address was not mentioned as required under Clause (c) and (f) of Rule 32 of the PFA Rules, 1955 and so the sample was misbranded.

2.3 Separate complaints were filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, who issued process against the accused to face prosecution under Section 16( 1 )(a)(i) of the PFA Act, 1954.

3.1 Assailing the summoning order and also seeking quashing of the complaints, it is contended by Ld. Senior counsel that there is violation of Rule 32 of the PFA Rules, 1955, as per the opinion of the Public Analyst, only by the manufacturer, who in the present case is M/s Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages Limited, whereas in the present case, instead of taking any action against said manufacturer, complaint has been filed against the petitioner and its manager without specifying their role in the present case.

3.2 ft is submitted further that Public Analyst has opined the address mentioned on the label of the product to be incomplete. Whereas, all bottles, manufactured by the manufacturer, bear common label and identical declarations on its crown cork mentioning the address. The tenn 'complete address' in Rule 32(c) of the PFA Rules, 1955 conveys complete postal address and the test of completeness is whether by giving the address on a postal correspondence will reach the addressee or not? If the answer if 'Yes' then the address is complete. Ld. Senior counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the Explanation II, provided under Rule 32 of the PFA Rules, 1955, as to what "Complete Address" means and contends that when name of the City and State are mentioned, or pin code is mentioned, then given address is complete or not. Ld. Senior counsel also contends that Rule 32(c) of the PFA Rules, 1955 was substituted by way of GSR 877(E) dated 20.11.2000 w.e.f. 20.11.2001, as per which the term 'complete address' as defined in Explanation II to Rule 32 was omitted w.e.f. 20.11.2001 and that address shall be considered to be co