IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34903-2013 Reserved on : 16.02.2026 Pronounced on: 09.03.2026 Uploaded on : 10.03.2026 Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

..... Petitioner Versus State (Union Territory Chandigarh) and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Batra, Advocate Mr. Ishan Khetarpal, Advocate and Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. J.S. Toor, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Adhiraj Toor, Advocate and Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate for respondent-U.T. Chandigarh.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of setting aside the impugned order dated 27.08.2012 (Annexure P-1) issuing process under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as PFA Act) passed by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh and quashing of proceedings in Complaint case No.PFA-282/2006 dated 22.11.2006 titled as ‘State (Chandigarh Administration) Vs. Mahesh and others’ under Sections 7 and 16 of PFA Act, read with Clause (c) of Rule 32 of the PFA Rules, 1955.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the present petition arises out of a complaint filed by respondent No.2 against Mahesh and Tara Chand, owner and licensee of vendor firm i.e. M/s Goel Wool and General Store, S.C.F.77, Sector-15 D, Chandigarh for keeping misbranded Mountain Dew Sweetened Carbonated Water Bottles under Section 2(ix)(k) in his possession which was meant for sale to general public and the same was sold to him and thus, committed the offences punishable under Section 16(1) (a)(i) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act. On 15.09.2004, Food Inspector visited the premises of M/s Goel Wool and General Store, Chandigarh and the Food Inspector after disclosing his identity demanded a sample of Mountain Dew Sweetened Carbonated Water for analysis and examination. The Public Analyst issued a certificate dated 19.09.2006, as per which the product has not been labelled in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32 of PFA Act and Rules, 1955, and hence, the sample was misbranded for the reason that the complete address of the manufacturer has not been mentioned on the same. On the basis of the report of Public Analyst, the complaint was filed before Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh against the accused persons. On the presentation of the complaint, the petitioner was summoned by the trial Court vide summoning order dated 27.08.2012, upon an application filed by the co-accused under Section 20-A of the PFA Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the impugned complaint and the impugned summoning order. It is apposite to mention here that the petitioner company has been amalgamated with M/s Aradhana Soft Drinks Company vide order dated 14.10.2011 passed by this Court in Company Petition bearing No.55 of 2011 and thus, has been arrayed as an accused No.3 in the aforementioned complaint.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner-company has vehemently contended before this Court that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously prosecuted in the impugned complaint and thus, has been illegally summoned vide impugned order dated 27.08.2012. It is submitted that the address, as per the report of the Public Analyst, clearly provides the complete address and details of the Company alongwith PINCODE. He submits that the address given, cannot be said to be incomplete address especially in view of the fact that it includes the postal address of the factory of the manufacturing company. It is submitted that the address printed on the label is sufficient to identify the manufacturer so as to verify the character, quality and quantity of the article and that mere fact that name of the State is not printed, does not in any way defeats the object of provision to find out the whereabouts of the manufacturer. It is submitted that the alleged infringing label has no