Crl. Misc. No. M-11793 of 2010 (&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-11793 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.08.2011. Aradhana Soft Drinks Company ........Petitioners and another Vs. The State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Batra Advocate and Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S.Brar, Asstt. A.G., Punjab for respondents. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the impugned order dated 11.01.2007 (Annexure P-1) and consequent proceedings in complaint No. 8/2/07 dated 11.01.2007. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the complaint had been filed by the Food Inspector for violation of provisions of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 ('Rules' for short) as the name of the state had not been given by the manufacturer while giving its address. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that in fact on the product it had been specifically mentioned that the Crl. Misc. No. M-11793 of 2010 (&M) -2 - bottle of Pepsi Diet was manufactured by Aradhana Soft Drinks Company, village Ali Asgarpur, Post Office Babarpur, G.T.Road, Panipat-132103. Hence, there was sufficient compliance of Rule 32 of the Rules. The fact that the name of the state was not mentioned, was inconsequential as the pin code as well as place of manufacture had been duly mentioned on the bottles in question. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 'R.K.Mittal versus Dr. B.Roy Chaudhary and another', Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases, 1985(1), 140, wherein it was held as under:- “On the facts and circumstances of this case and relying upon the two decisions, referred to above, I am of the view that in this case there has been substantial compliance with Rule 32(b) of the said Rules since the address given on the Crown corks is sufficient to locate the reputed concern in question. On the strength of the address given on the said crown corks the concerned authorities or other persons cannot have any difficulty in locating the said concern. Accordingly, I hold that no offence, as alleged by the prosecution, has been prima facie made out against the petitioner and the charge framed must be set aside.” Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further placed reliance on 'Hindustan Lever Limited versus Government Food Inspector, Hoshiarpur and another' decided by a Division Bench of this court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-40359 of 2007 on 18.7.2011 wherein it was Crl. Misc. No. M-11793 of 2010 (&M) -3 - held as under:- “Coming to the question; as to whether the name of State is bound to be disclosed so as to meet the requirement of Rule 32(c)(i), it needs to be noticed that Rule 32 has been framed with a view to prevent the public or the purchaser being deceived or misled as to character, quality or quantity of the article in terms of Section 23 (1A) (d) of the Act. Though the Postal Index Number is meant to facilitate delivery of postal articles by the Postal Authorities, but the fact remains that such Postal Index Number is widely in use after the same was introduced in the year 1972. The Postal Index Number denotes not only the region, but also the State and also the postal area, where the manufacturing unit or the distributor is located. Such Postal Index Number is not an internal guideline shrouded in secrecy, but is widely publicized document propagated to be used by all users of postal articles. Therefore, the printing of Pin code is sufficient to identify the location of the manufacturer or packer, as the case may be, which specifies the purpose of Rules contemplated by a Statute. The requirement of Rule is to examined keeping in view expectations of the reasonable average citizen. The view of this Court in Harkirat Singh, Hasmukh Mewada and Mhini Tea Leaves cases (supra), that address given by the manufacturer or the packer, which includes the Pin code and as thus, the Food Crl. Misc. No. M-11793 of 2010 (&M) -4 - Inspector or any person authorized on the Rules have no difficulty in locating the address cannot be said to be against the objective and purpose of the Rules. The substance of the Rule is satisfied, when the name of the manufacturer and the address, which may be the Pin code is sufficient to identify and locate the manufacturer. It is the substance, which is important and not the form thereof. Therefore, in our view the expression 'complete address' appearing in Rule 32(c)(i) of the Rules, does not necessarily include the name of the State as well. Therefore, we approve the ratio of judgments of this Court in Harkirat Singh, Hasmukh Mewada and Mohini Tea Leaves cases (supra) and answer the reference accordingly.” Learned senior counsel has further submitted that so far as the petitioners are concerned, they are the manufacturers and could not be held liable for selling expired product. Learned state counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that since the name of the state had not been mentioned by the manufacturer on the bottles in question meant for sale and human consumption, the same were misbranded and the petitioner was liable to be prosecuted. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. The case of the complainant in brief is that on 28.7.2006 bottles of carbonated water (Diet Pepsi) meant for sale to public for human consumption were recovered from Om Crl. Misc. No. M-11793 of 2010 (&M) -5 - Parkash. When the samples were sent for chemical analysis, it was reported by the analyst that the product had not been labeled in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules as the complete address of its manufacturer, i.e. name of the state, had not been given. Moreover, the sample had been taken after its expiry. Hence, the sample was misbranded. A perusal of the report of the public analyst reveals that it had been duly mentioned on the bottle that the same had been manufactured by Aradhana Soft Drinks Company, village Asgarpur, Post Office, Babarpur, G.T.Road, Panipat-132103. The fact that the name of the state was not mentioned does not make the sample misbranded as the address, given on the bottle, is sufficient to locate the concern in question. The pin code as well as the place of manufacture of the concern has been given on the bottle. Rule 32(c)(i) of the Rules reads as under:- “The name and complete address of the manufacturer and the manufacturing unit, if these are located at different places and in case the manufacturer is not the packer or bottler, the name and complete address of the packing or bottling unit as the case may be;” Thus, as per the above rule, the manufacturer is required to disclose its complete address of the bottling unit amongst other things. In the present case, merely because the name of the state was not mentioned by the manufacturer, although the name of the place of the bottling as well as the pin code had been given, does not lead to the conclusion that the Crl. Misc. No. M-11793 of 2010 (&M) -6 - sample was misbranded. Since the petitioners are the manufacturer, they cannot be held liable for sale of the expired product. For the said lapse, the person who was selling the expired product, can be held liable. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.01.2007 (Annexure P-1) and all consequent proceedings in complaint No. 8/2/07 dated 11.1.2007, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 23, 2011 Gurpreet