CRM No. M-13770 of 2008 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-13770 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 7th November, 2011 M/s Hindustan Lever Limited (Now known as Hindustan Unilever Limited) ……… Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ………… Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of complaint No. 283/2/2001 dated 10.11.2001 under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and under Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (Annexure P-8) (hereinafter referred to as '1955 Rules'), summoning order dated 10.11.2001 (Annexure P-10) and along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Petitioner, who is the manufacturer of “Brooke Bond Red Label Tea” sample of which was taken in three sealed packets of 250 gms each by respondent No.1 Food Inspector, Jalandhar on 28.4.2001 from the shop of Dev Raj son of Sh. Nanak Chand Proprietor Dev Raj Kiryana Store Village Khurla Kugra, District Jalandhar. These samples were taken and form VI dated 28.4.2011 was issued. The said packets each containing 250 gms (sealed) were put in a strong thick paper were labeled, fastened and wrapped. The edges of the strong thick paper, were pasted on the sides of each sample packet with the help of gum. This procedure, which has been adopted by the Food Inspector, CRM No. M-13770 of 2008 -2- has been challenged in this petition by the petitioner by alleging that Rule 14 of the 1955 Rules have not been complied with and is in violation thereof. For this reliance has been placed on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Raman Kumar 1998, Crl. Law Journal 737 wherein it has been held that polythene containers or a wrapper of strong thick paper cannot conform to a definition of container as contained in Rule 14 of the 1955 Rules. In the present case admittedly thick paper has been used as a wrapper for the sample, which the petitioner contends, therefore, does not conform to Rule 14 of the 1955 Rules and thus prays for quashing of the complaint. That apart counsel for the petitioner further contends that what has been found in the report was that there were four Jalas in the samples. He contends that in the report it has not been said that the sample was unfit for human consumption and, therefore, does not conform to the requirement of the product being adulterated. Counsel for the petitioner had argued the petition on these lines. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-State submits that on the physical verification of the samples it was found that there were four Jalas, which do suggest that it was not fit for human consumption. As regards the wrapping of the samples in thick paper is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the packets were kept in the original form and they were not opened and thereafter further packing of these samples in thick paper would conform to Rule 14 of the 1955 Rules. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present petition. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their assistance. The facts as narrated herein above are not in dispute. Full Bench of this Court in State of Punjab vs. Raman Kumar case (supra) in para 21, 23 & 24 held as follows :- CRM No. M-13770 of 2008 -3- 21. In our considered view, polythene containers or a wrapper of strong thick paper cannot conform to a definition of container as contained in Rule 14 of the Rules. The polythene bags or a thick paper have got a chance of being pierced. They are most susceptible to moisture, rodents, pests and can even burst with a little more pressure put on them. Such type of containers are not in a position of being closed tightly to prevent leakage etc. A thick paper packed has the chance of even being completely wet and again is unable to prevent entering moisture into it. There are every chances of such type of containers being affected as stated above not by designs but even by chance when in transit i.e. after the sample is taken by the Food Inspector in such container and thereafter it reaches the laboratory for final analysis. xx xx xx xx xx 23. The Legislature in its wisdom has used the expression a suitable container in Rule 14. The expression must be given its cogent and reasonable meaning on the one hand and should be interpreted in a manner so as to ensure the implicit protection available to an accused under these provisions on the other hand. The view expressed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has also indicated such meaning by holding that ordinary container may not exclude a container of polythene. Suitability of a container emphasis the need that such a container should be one which would prevent leakage, evaporation and entrance of moisture. In other words, suitable container must also exclude the possibility of its being tampered with in the ordinary course of nature. Once the container satisfied these conditions it would be a suitable container and then the concerned Inspector is obliged to satisfy the requirements of Rule 16 of the Rules with regard to collection and sealing of the sample. 24. In view of our discussion made above, we cannot consider a container made of polythene and a thick paper wrapper as a suitable container as contemplated under Rule 14 of the Rules.” CRM No. M-13770 of 2008 -4- In the light of the above, the present petition deserves to be allowed as the sample which has been taken in the present case has been wrapped in a thick paper, which does not conform to Rule 14 of the Rules, 1955 as held by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Punjab vs. Raman Kumar case (supra). It would not be out of place to mention here that in the case before the Full Bench also the samples were sealed packets of chilly powder each weighing 100 gms, which were wrapped in a thick paper while taking sample. Consequently, complaint No. 283/2/2001 dated 10.11.2001 under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, summoning order dated 10.11.2001 (Annexure P-10) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner are hereby quashed. 7th November, 2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE